The Dynamics of Violence and Revenge in the Hebrew Book of Esther [1 ed.] 9789004337022, 9789004337015

Citation preview

The Dynamics of Violence and Revenge in the Hebrew Book of Esther

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Editor in Chief Christl M. Maier Editorial Board H.M. Barstad – N. Calduch-Benages – D.M. Carr – R.P. Gordon – L.C. Jonker J. Joosten – G.N. Knoppers – A. van der Kooij – S.L. McKenzie – C.A. Newsom M. Nissinen – H. Spieckermann – N. Wazana – S.D. Weeks – H.G.M. Williamson

VOLUME 175

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vts

The Dynamics of Violence and Revenge in the Hebrew Book of Esther By

Francisco-Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Ruiz-Ortiz, Francisco-Javier, 1976– author. Title: The dynamics of violence and revenge in the Hebrew Book of Esther / by  Francisco-Javier Ruiz-Ortiz. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2017] | Series: Supplements to Vetus  Testamentum ; volume 175 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017001027 (print) | LCCN 2017001781 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004337015 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004337022 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Esther—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Violence in  the Bible. | Revenge in the Bible. Classification: LCC BS1375.52 .R85 2017 (print) | LCC BS1375.52 (ebook) |  DDC 222/.906—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017001027

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0083-5889 isbn 978-90-04-33701-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-33702-2 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Abbreviations IX General Introduction 1 1 Violence in the Bible 1 1.1 Description of Violence 2 2 Violence in the Book of Esther 5 3 Outline of the Study 7 4 Methodology 8 5 Further Developments of this Research 10

part 1 Literary Inquiry into the Book of Esther 1 The Book of Esther in Context 13 1 Purim 13 1.1 Origins of the Feast 13 1.2 Liturgical Relationship Between the Book of Esther and Purim 15 2 Textual Questions 16 2.1 Textual Landscape 16 2.2 Qumran Fragments 19 2.3 Relation Between the Different Texts 21 3 Literary Dimensions 21 3.1 Literary Genre 22 3.2 Characterisation 27 3.3 Structure 27 3.4 Reinterpretation of Biblical Stories 29 3.5 Irony/Sarcasm 32 3.6 Rhetorical Devices 33 4 Motifs and Themes 34 4.1 Banquets 35 4.2 Kingship 35 4.3 Obedience/Disobedience 36 4.4 Power 37 4.5 Loyalty to the Jewish Community 37 4.6 Inviolability of the Jewish Nation and Reversal 38 4.7 Shame and Honour 38 4.8 Absence of God 39

vi

Contents

5

Interpretative Currents 42 5.1 Carnivalesque Reading 42 5.2 Political Explanation 43 5.3 Feminist Interpretations 44 6 Reception History 46 6.1 Reception History of the Book of Esther 46 7 Conclusion 51

2 Vocabulary of Violence 52 1 Subjects of Violent Actions 53 1.1 ‫“ צ ֵֹרר‬attacker, enemy” 53 1.2 ‫שנֵא‬ ֹ “one who hates, enemy” 55 1.3 ‫“ איב‬enemy” 57 1.4 Summary 59 2 Feelings Leading to Violence 59 2.1 ‫“ קצף‬to be angry; anger” 60 2.2 ‫“ חֵ ָמה‬anger” 64 3 Violent Acts 67 3.1 ‫ תלה‬/ ‫“ תלא‬to hang” 67 3.2 ‫“ ׁשלט‬to gain dominion” 70 3.3 ‫“ ׁשלח יד‬to stretch out the hand” 71 3.4 ‫“ ׁשמד‬to exterminate” 73 3.5 ‫“ אבד‬to (cause to) perish” 75 3.6 ‫“ הרג‬to kill” 78 3.7 ‫“ נקם‬to take revenge” 79 4 Conclusion 83 3 Violence in the Narrative of Esther 85 1 Literary Composition 86 1.1 What Kind of Plot? 87 1.2 The Narrator’s Telling and Showing 90 1.3 The Characters’ Dialogue 93 1.4 Legal Documents 95 1.5 Summary 96 2 Plot 97 2.1 Nature of the Plot: Revelation or Resolution? 97 2.2 Role of Violence in the Plot 100 3 Point of View 104 3.1 Narrator’s Point of View 104 3.2 Characters’ Point of View 106

Contents

4 Characters 107 4.1 Ahasuerus 109 4.2 Vashti 111 4.3 Mordecai 113 4.4 Esther 117 4.5 Haman 120 4.6 Jewish People 122 4.7 Minor Characters 124 5 Framework 126 5.1 Time 126 5.2 Space 129 6 Universals of Narrative 130 6.1 Suspense 130 6.2 Curiosity 132 6.3 Surprise 132 7 Conclusion 133

PART 2 Exegesis of Chosen Passages 4 The King’s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23 137 1 Text 137 1.1 Textual Notes 138 1.2 Translation 139 2 Literary Analysis 140 2.1 Delimitation 140 2.2 Setting 140 2.3 Structure 142 3 Commentary 143 3.1 Use of Verbs 146 3.2 Description of Characters 148 3.3 It Was Written in the Chronicles 151 4 Conclusion 154 5 The Beginning of the End: Exegesis of Esther 7:1–10 155 1 Text 156 1.1 Textual Notes 156 1.2 Translation 159 1.3 The Greek Versions 160 2 Literary Analysis 161 2.1 Delimitation 161

vii

viii

Contents

2.2 Setting 162 2.3 Structure 163 3 The Banquet Motif 164 3.1 Eating and Drinking in Classical Sources 165 3.2 Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament 167 3.3 Eating and Drinking in the Book of Esther 169 4 Commentary 171 4.1 Exposition (7:1–2a) 172 4.2 Complication (7:2b–5) 173 4.3 Turning Point (7:6–8) 179 4.4 Denouement (7:9–10a) 185 4.5 Final Situation (7:10b) 187 5 Conclusion 187 6 Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19 190 1 Text 191 1.1 Translation 192 1.2 The Greek Versions 194 2 Literary Analysis 195 2.1 Delimitation 195 2.2 Setting 196 2.3 Structure 198 3 Thorny Questions about Chapter 9 199 3.1 Description of Characters 200 3.2 Interpretation 203 4 Commentary 204 4.1 Background Information (9:1–4) 205 4.2 First Action (9:5–11) 213 4.3 Dialogue between the King and the Queen (9:12–13) 218 4.4 Fulfilment of the Command (9:14–19) 220 5 Conclusion 225 General Conclusions 228 1 Literary Dimension of Violence 229 2 Characters and Violence 230 3 The Violent Narrative of Esther 232 4 God’s Hidden Face 233 5 The Relationship between the Jews and the World around Them 235 Bibliography 239 Index of Authors 264 Index of Biblical Citations 267

Abbreviations ABCat ABD ABRL ACEBTr.S

Associació bíblica de Catalunya The Anchor Bible Dictionary The Anchor Bible Reference Library Amterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities. Supplement Series AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures ALUOS The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society AmUSt.TR. American University Studies. Theology and Religion AncB Anchor Bible AnBib Analecta Biblica AnCl Antiquité Classique Anton Antonianum AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament ArBib The Aramaic Bible ASBF Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Analecta ATF Australasian Theological Forum AUSS Andrew’s University Seminary Studies BA Biblical Archaeologist BBR Bulletin of Biblical Research BCH.S Bulletin de correspondance Hellénique. Suppléments BDB F. Brown – S.R. Driver – C. Briggs, Hebrew and English Dictionary of the Old Testament, Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. BEAT Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums BEThL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BHispSt Bulletin of Hispanic Studies BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta BiAl Bible d’Alexandrie Bib. Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibInt.S Biblical Interpretation Series BibRev Bible Review BibS Biblische Studien BibTr Bible Translator BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament

x BN BSac BSEAA BST BTB BTS BWANT BZ BZAW CahEv CBET CBQ CBQ.MS CDAFI CivCatt CJAn CUP CurResB DCLS DCLY DSD EBR EDB EDBib EE EJ ET EThL EurJud FAT FOTL FRLANT FrRev FV GK HALOT HANE/S HAR

Abbreviations

Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Sacra XVII–XVIII. Bulletin de la société d’études anglo-américaines des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles The Bible Speaks Today Biblical Theology Bulletin Bible et Terre Sainte Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Cahiers Évangile Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Cahiers de la délégation archéologique française in Iran Civiltà Cattolica Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Cambridge University Press Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook Dead Sea Discoveries Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible Estudios Eclesiásticos Encyclopaedia Judaica Expository Times Ephemerides theologicae Lovanensis European Judaism Forschungen zum Alten Testament The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments The French Review Foi et vie W. Gesenius – E. Kautsch, Hebrew Grammar, Oxford: Claredon, 21910 Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament History of the Ancient Near East/Studies Hebrew Annual Review

Abbreviations

xi

HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HBS Herders biblische Studien HDR Harvard Dissertation in Religion HeBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel HebStud Hebrew Studies HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HThK.AT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IMJ Israel Museum Journal Interp Interpretation IrAnt Iranica Antiqua ITH Iranische Texte und Hilfsbücher JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly Jdm Judaism JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JHSc Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JM P. Joüon – T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew JNWSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JPS Jewish Publication Society JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JR Journal of Religion JSem Journal for Semitics JSJ.S Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNT.S Journal of Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT.S Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series JThS.NS Journal of Theological Studies. New Series JWCI Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament LCL Loeb Classical Library LeDiv Lectio Divina LEIA Laboratoire d’Etudes Italiennes, Ibériques et Ibéro-Américaines, Université de Caen LHB Library of Hebrew Bible LingBibl Linguistica Biblica

xii LNTS LSTS NAC NBE NCB NIV NReTh NSBT OBO OTE OTL OTM OTS OTSt OUP PAM PHSC PIBA PIRBS PRSt PSV PTMS RAr RB RBL RdQ ResB RevBib RivBib RRENAB RStB SBL.DS SBL.MS SBL.SCS SBL.SS SBL.TCS SBS ScB ScEc

Abbreviations

Library of New Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies The New American Commentary Nueva Biblia Española New Century Bible Commentary New International Version Nouvelle revue de théologie New Studies in Biblical Theology Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Oudtestamentische Studiën Old Testament Studies Oxford University Press Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association Publications de l’Institut Romand des Sciences Bibliques Perspective in religious Studies Parola, Spirito e Vita Princeton Theological Monographs Series Revue Archéologique Revue biblique Review of Biblical Literature Revue de Qumran Reseña bíblica Revista Biblica Argentina Rivista Biblica Réseau de recherche en Narratologie et Bible Ricerche Storico Bibliche Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series Society of Biblical Literature. Semeia Studies Society of Biblical Literature. Text Critical Studies Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scripture Bulletin Science ecclésiastiques

Abbreviations

xiii

ScEs Science et esprit ScrBib Scripta biblica SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament STR Southeastern Theological Review SubBib Subsidia Biblica SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology Text Textus TG.T Tesi Gregoriana. Serie Teologia THAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament ThWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament TR Theologische Rundschau Trad Tradition. A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought Trans Transeuphratène TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift TZ Theologische Zeitschrift UCOIP University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review VT Vetus Testamentum VT.S Vetus Testamentum. Supplement Series Waltke – O’Connor B.K. Waltke – M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 WBC Word Biblical Commentary WO Die Welt des Orients WoWo Word and World WThJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZABR Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZRGG Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

General Introduction Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up Mahatma Gandhi

⸪ Prompted by current social events, and after 11th September 2001, society has asked questions about the relationship between religion and violence. Also the biblical academic world, in the last decade or so, has been occupied with the theme of violence in the Bible.1 When faced with the issue of violence a principle should be established: the Bible is not to be considered simply as a moral guide to ethical behaviour. It contains true descriptions of feelings, such as anger, envy, revenge, which are found in every human heart. At certain times, those feelings are neither approved nor condemned but only illustrated. 1

Violence in the Bible

Reading through the Bible we find many examples of violence which go beyond the actual physical harm inflicted on people. Any definition of violence, therefore, must encompass words and actions aimed at damaging the physical or psychological integrity of the person. Presented with examples of violence in the Scriptures, biblical scholars have been called to give an interpretation. In recent years, and more specifically in the years following the publication of René Girard’s La violence et le sacré in 1972,2 many 1  Cf. L. Mazzinghi, ed., La violenza nella Bibbia; A. Puig i Tàrrech, ed., La violència en la Bíblia. For other publications on the relationship between violence, religion and God, see G. Barbaglio, Dio violento?; J.J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas”, 3–21; A. Filippi, ed., La violenza; P.M. McDonald, God and Violence; J. Bekkenkamp – Y. Sherwood, eds., Sanctified Aggressions; J.-D. Causse – E. Cuvillier – A. Wénin, Divine violence; R.S. Boustan – A.P. Jassen – C.J. Roetzel., eds., Violence. The 2014 SBL annual meeting in San Diego had as a theme “Violence and Representations of Violence among Christians and Jews”. 2  For example, issue 33 of Semeia presents a collection of papers on the Girardian interpretation of the Bible, cf. A.J. McKenna, ed., “René Girard and Biblical Studies”, 1–171. See also M. Girard, “La violence de Dieu”, 145–170; A. Marx, “Familiarité”, 1–14; H.J.L. Jensen, “Desire,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_002

2

General Introduction

studies have been produced on the function of violence, war and revenge in the Bible.3 1.1 Description of Violence Readers of the Old Testament who focus on the many passages describing a loving God can make neither head nor tail of the other passages in which God acts violently, commands fighting and condones aggression.4 These acts of divine violence are executed by humans whose responsibility cannot be denied. 1.1.1 Human Violence Human violence is expressed by a proper vocabulary.5 Even though the biblical authors express violent acts by a variety of words and images, the main Hebrew root to express “violence” is ‫חמס‬.6 At first ‫ חמס‬describes the wicked ways of humans in general (Gen 6:11.13; Mic 6:12)7 and the pouring of blood in particular (Gen 49:5; Ezek 7:23). Other transgressions result in violent behaviour against righteousness (Amos 3:10), the defenceless (Jer 22:3) and the truth (Zeph 1:9), even though the most serious ones are those against the Torah (Ezek 22:26; Zeph 3:4). The repercussions of these crimes which defile the earth (Jer 13:22; cf. Lev 20:22) affect those who commit them (Judg 9:24). In a first instance ‫ חמס‬relates to a crime which needs to be denounced in order to avoid its consequences for the community (Deut 19:15–19) and thus violence is not an aimless pursuit but is related to the processes of re-establishing justice (cf. Hab 1:2; Job 19:7).8 Rivalry and Collective Violence”, 39–59; J.G. Williams, “On Job and Writing”, 32–50. For summaries of applications of Girard’s theory on the Bible, see J.G. Williams, The Bible, Violence, and the Sacred, 6–31; R. North, “Violence and the Bible”, 1–27; S. Goodhart – A.W. Astell, “Substitutive Reading”, 1–36; R. Girard, “The Ancient Trail Trodden by the Wicked”, 13–41. For a summary of view against Girard’s, see R. North, “Violence and the Bible”, 21–26. 3  Cf. N. Lohfink, Il Dio della Bibbia, 40–50; E.A. Seibert, The Violence of Scripture, 15–57 and the titles mentioned in note 1. 4  For some titles dealing with the problems of God and violence, see N. Lohfink, Il Dio della Bibbia; G. Barbaglio, Dio violento?; P. Beauchamp – D. Vasse, La violence dans la Bible; T. Römer, Dieu obscure, 55–96; D. Marguerat, Dieu est-il violent?; E.A. Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behahior; J.L. Barriocanal Gómez, La imagen de un Dios violento.; J.-D. Causse – E. Cuvillier – A. Wénin, Divine violence. 5  Cf. G. Barbaglio, Dio violento?, 13–16; E. Peretto, “Violenza e linguaggio biblico”, 31–51. 6  H ALOT, 329: “To treat violently”, “violence, wrong”; Clines, III, 256–257; H. Haag, “‫”חמס‬, 1050–1061; cf. J. Piedad Sánchez, “El uso”, 11–18. 7  Biblical books are quoted according to “Instructions for Contributors”, Bib. 70 (1989) 581–582. 8  P. Bovati, Ristabilire la giustizia, 290–292.

General Introduction

3

Other texts describe the violent behaviour of humans, even though they might not share a common, technical vocabulary.9 In our survey of studies on the problem of human violence, the main passages studied are the binding of Isaac (Gen 22),10 the law of ritual ban (‫)חרם‬,11 the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah (Judg 11–12),12 the death of the Levite’s concubine (Judg 19)13 and the imprecatory psalms (Pss 58 and 137).14 Some of these texts are crueller because they deal with violence against women. In those instances the actions of rape or murder are set within the context of war. As today so in biblical times, inflicting physical harm on the female members of the enemy is a common military strategy. Therefore biblical descriptions of this sort can be truly named texts of terror.15 However the eschatological hope of the prophets relies on the day when violence will be no more. With the arrival of the promised Messiah, peace will arrive (Isa 11:1–9) and redemption from oppression and violence (cf. Ps 72:14). In this way, the human violence serves God’s purposes of making his people flourish.16

9   The main associates of ‫ חמס‬are the verb ‫ׁשדד‬, “to devastate, destroy” (Clines, VIII, 267– 268) and the noun ‫“ ׁשד‬destruction, violence” (Clines, VIII, 266–267). ‫ חמס‬is used in conjuction with the verb ‫“( בגד‬to act faithlessly”, Zeph 3:4; Mal 2:16), the noun ‫“( און‬iniquity”, Ps 55:10), and the expression ‫“( ַמ ְׂש ִּכּיֹות ֵל ָבב‬wicked plans of the heart”, Ps 73:6–7) among others (H. Haag, “‫”חמס‬, 1053–1054). 10  O. Boehm, “The Binding of Isaac”, 1–12; Z. Fisher, “Sacrificing Isaac”, 137–178; H. Schweizer, “ ‘Isaaks Opferung’ ”, 25–44; C. Grapper – A. Marx, Sacrifices scandaleux?, 29–41. 11  Cf. N. Lohfink, “La ‘guerra santa’ ”, 83–94; Y. Hoffman, “The Deuteronomistic Concept”, 196–210; S. Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible, 28–77; K. Lawson Younger, “Some Recent Discussion”, 505–522. 12  Cf. M. Sjöberg, “Jephtah’s Daughter”, 377–394; C. Grapper – A. Marx, Sacrifices scandaleux?, 43–55; M.L. Melero Gracia, “La muerte en Mispá”, 67–86; D.G. Kamrada, “The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter”, 57–85; J.-D. Causse, “La violence archaïque”, 86–93; L.A.S. Monroe, “Disembodied Women”, 32–52. 13   D.I. Bock, “Echo Narrative”, 325–341; A.A. Keefe, “Rapes of Women”, 79–97; A. Hock-Soon Ng, “Revisiting Judges 19”, 199–215. 14  Cf. D. Scaiola, “I salmi imprecatori”, 61–79; M. Leighton, “ ‘¡Dichoso el que tome tus niños!’ ”, 135–149; J. Hausmann, “Heilige Texte und Gewalt”, 86–93. 15  Cf. P. Tribble, Texts of Terror, 1–7. 16  W. Brueggemann, Theology, 244: “The violence assigned to Yahweh is to be understood as counterviolence which functions primarily as a critical principle in order to undermine and destabilize other violence”.

4

General Introduction

1.1.2 Violence, a Theological Issue Although violence is found wherever there are people, God seems to be the subject of violence with a remarkable frequency which outmatches that of the human agent.17 The beginning of Genesis describes a God who loves peace and kindness but who intervenes in history when human wickedness becomes excessive.18 Violent divine interventions are an expression of his justice against Israel’s foes, as in the case of the plagues against Egypt (Exod 7:14–12: 32). Some texts refer to God as a warrior (Exod 15:3; 1 Sam 17:47)19 who engages in his own battles (Num 21:14; 1 Sam 18:17; 25:28).20 This image might become quite disturbing since, after the conquest of the Promised Land, violence is done in God’s name (cf. 2 Kgs 9:22–37)21 till the time of the Maccabees. Moreover, God threatens the unfaithfulness of Israel with violence (cf. Isa 1:1–20; Jer 31:18–19; Amos 1:3–2:16) because he wants to correct his people (cf. Job 5:17–18), even when the correction comes to no avail.22 When faced with the theme of violence in the Bible one cannot but treat it as a theological issue.23 In all these examples of violence willed or carried out by God and humans, the reader of the sacred text needs to take the different literary genres into consideration.24 For example, in the great epics the heroes are idealised and so are their gods. So in order to exalt one’s divinity, his or her worshippers have to conquer and destroy their enemies.25 In the biblical account of the conquest, the authors have, nonetheless, left the tensions between the accounts of victories (Josh 11:16–20; 12:1–24) and what is still to do 17  According to Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan, “more than 600 passages of human violence and some 1000 passages of divine violence occur in the OT”, C.A. Kirk-Duggan, “Violence”, 1358. 18  Cf. A. Wénin, “ ‘Adonaï est un guerrier’ ”, 21–27. 19  T. Römer, “Dieu guerrier”, 126–134. For studies on Exod 15, see A.M. Wolters, “Not Rescue but Destruction”, 223–240; M. Vervenne, “Metaphors for Destruction”, 179–194; L. Mazzinghi, “ ‘Il Signore passerà’ ”, 69–82; cf. G. Barbaglio, Dio violento?, 57–73. 20  For a study of the relationship between God and wars, see N. Lohfink, Il Dio della Bibbia, 57–131; cf. G. Barbaglio, Dio violento?, 74–101. 21  N. Calduch-Benages, “Le pagine ‘oscure’ della Bibbia”, 89. 22  A. Wénin, “ ‘Adonaï est un guerrier’ ”, 51: “En ce sens, le livre des Juges—où abonde une violence souvent liée à Dieu—raconte comment, après avoir mise sur la stratégie alternée du châtiment et du salut en vue d’éduquer Israël à la fidélité à l’alliance, Adonaï finit par abdiquer, comme paralysé par l’échec de cette pédagogie”. 23   J.L. Ska, “Come leggere l’Antico Testamento”, 211. 24   J.L. Ska, “Come leggere l’Antico Testamento”, 215: “I testi biblici definiscono il rapporto con la realtà storica in accordo con le convenzioni letterarie della loro epoca e generano la loro peculiare teologia seguendo le vie a loro proprie”. 25  C. Conroe, “Hebrew Epic”, 16–28.

General Introduction

5

(Josh 13:1–13; 18:3–7),26 making evident that God is both present in the idealistic victories and the realistic defeats.27 In this way God’s violence is set in two contexts: judgment and salvation.28 The words used by the biblical writers are those of believers trying to make sense of their religious experience and at times projecting onto God their own human feelings.29 Each of the descriptions needs to be supplemented by the other images of God offered in the Bible because none of the perspectives is absolute. As the Israelites grew in their awareness of the God of history, their understanding of the divine developed. Thus the God of war cannot be disassociated from the God who promises peace (Ps 46:10; 76:3–4) and the images of eschatological tranquillity (Isa 2:1–4; Ezek 39:9–10). Hence only a holistic reading of the Bible will give a more accurate view of what the Scriptures say about violence and its relationship with the divine.30 In all these passages God is somehow involved, even though violence is delivered by humans. As we study the book of Esther, the Scroll stands out among biblical narratives because of its non religious character. Its narrator presents to his audience violence as willed and executed only by human agents. 2

Violence in the Book of Esther

In the past couple of decades, interest in the book of Esther31 has been growing. This new wave of attention reached its peak in the 2000 Nebraska congress on the Meghillah.32 Different scholars gathered in order to present their research on different aspects of Esther: its narrative structure, its influence on Jewish and Christian communities, and its relation to other biblical stories among 26  N. Calduch-Benages, “Le pagine ‘oscure’ della Bibbia”, 92. 27   J.L. Ska, “Come leggere l’Antico Testamento”, 220. 28  Cf. T.E. Fretheim, “God and Violence”, 22–25. 29  Cf. J.-D. Causse, “La violence archaïque”, 84–85; D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 167–169. 30  G. Barbaglio, Dio violento?, 15: “Il vero problema della violenza nella bibbia è squisitamente teologico, perché chiama in causa Dio stesso”. 31  The book of Esther is one of the Five scrolls (Megilloth) read at the different Jewish festivals. The other scrolls are: Ruth (used at the feast of Shavuot, that is, the feast of Weeks/ Pentecost); Song of Songs (recited for the feast of Passover); Qohelet (proclaimed for the feast of Sukkoth/Tabernacles); and Lamentations (read out on the Ninth of Av, the commemoration of the destruction of the Temple). However, the book of Esther is considered the Scroll par excellence and is better known as the Meghillah. During this work we will use these three names (book of Esther, Meghillah and Scroll) as synonyms. 32  S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research.

6

General Introduction

other themes. This renewed consideration comes after a long period in which the Scroll had been ignored and even rejected, mainly in Christian circles.33 Many studies have been devoted to Esther’s textual history. As well as the Masoretic text, there are two versions in Greek (LXX and the so-called Alpha text) and two in Latin (Vetus Latina and the Vulgate). They differ from each other in content, structure and theological approach. Hence these versions are analysed independently and, in certain cases, are compared with one another. In this way, researchers pursue a greater understanding of the thought behind each one of them.34 The Jewish community holds the Meghillah in great esteem and the feast of Purim, which is associated with the book, is highly celebrated and extremely popular. On the other hand, Christians down the ages have found it difficult to accept Esther due to its subject matter.35 Luther went so far as to say that he would not be sad to see the books of Esther and 2 Maccabees struck from the canon of Scripture due to their nationalistic contents.36 After a thorough examination of these studies, which will be illustrated in chapter 1 of the present book, we have noticed that no monograph has been written on the role of violence and revenge in any of the versions of the book of Esther. Although several authors have commented on this subject,37 no indepth study has yet been published other than Nuria Calduch-Benages’s article on this topic.38 This article forms the starting point of our study which proposes to develop its insights so as to fill the gap in the scholarship of the book of Esther.

33   F.W. Bush, “The Book of Esther”, 39–40. Elisabetta Limardo Daturi offers a review of the Christian commentaries to Esther, see E. Limardo Daturi, Représentations d’Esther, 53–64. This unease with the Meghillah is also expressed by the fact that the first Christian commentary to the whole book did not appear until the 9th century (PL 109, 635–670); J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 195: “El recelo se manifiesta de forma clara al no aparecer comentario al libro de Ester hasta el siglo IX con Rabano Mauro (año 831)”. Previous references can be found in Athanasius, Ep Fest 4:2; 10:11; Clement of Alexandria, Strom 3:2; 4:19 (cf. R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 231 n 447; F.W. Bush, Esther, 273–277). 34  Cf. K.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparér; T. Miller, Three Versions of Esther; just to mention a few. 35  Esther is always interpreted however in a allegorical manner, cf. P. di Luccio, “Il cambio delle sorti”, 544–556; Id., “La Megillá de Ester”, 39–55. 36  M. Luther, Tischreden, vol. I, 208. 37  M.-T. Wacker, “Tödliche Gewalt des Judenhasses”, 609–637; R. Achenbach, “Vertilgen— Töten—Vernichten”, 282–315. 38  N. Calduch-Benages, “War, Violence and Revenge in the Book of Esther”, 121–145.

General Introduction

3

7

Outline of the Study

This work is divided into two major parts, each consisting of three chapters. In part one, we treat preliminary questions about the study of Esther while in part two we make an exegetical analysis of three chosen passages. The main interest of this work is to explore how the author of Esther develops the dynamics of violence and revenge and how he places them in the structure of the book. We hope to show the ways in which readers are encouraged to hold firm in the midst of a situation of tension because eventually it would be resolved into the desired peace and tranquillity. Chapter one provides a brief history of research, underlining those aspects that are relevant to our investigation. The main aid to this chapter has been the classified bibliography of the book of Esther published by the married couple Meir and Edith Lubetski.39 The topics we review are the relationship between the Meghillah and the celebration of Purim, the textual problematic of the Scroll, and the different literary features present in the Scroll which include the genre of the book of Esther, its structure, its connection with other biblical stories and a whole array of rhetorical devices. We appraise the motifs present in the book, how characters are described and some of the different hermeneutical approaches to the Meghillah. Finally we consider how the sacred text has been received and interpreted by the visual arts, literature and music. In our view, this final section is one of our contributions to scholarship on Esther. In chapter two we identify the vocabulary of violence contained in Esther and analyse the components of this vocabulary, both the verbs (to destroy, to kill, etc.) and the nouns (anger, enemy, etc.). First we examine the notion of “enemy” by studying the three words that express this concept: the participle of the verbs ‫ צרר‬and ‫ ׂשנא‬and the substantive ‫אֹויב‬. Subsequently, we proceed to evaluate the rest of the terms in a twofold division. We analyse the feelings that lead to violence, such as anger or revenge; then we list the different violent 39  M. Lubetski – E. Lubetski, The Book of Esther. A Classified Bibliography. “All in all, this attractive volume [. . .] should revolutionize studying about and teaching about the plot, characters, and setting of the book of Esther in both the Hebrew original and the other versions as well as the extensive literature that has been inspired by the book from antiquity to the present. [. . .] the Lubetski volume should inspire a new generation of Bible bibliographies, which make it possible for undergraduate and graduate students as well as participants in Jewish and Christian Bible study groups to gather materials more efficiently and without the sense of drudgery that has often turned students off and away from our exciting field of endeavour” (M.I. Gruber, “Review of E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, Classified Bibliography”, 218).

8

General Introduction

actions that take place in the Meghillah such as hanging, killing or destroying. In both stages of our research we begin with the understanding of a given term in the Scriptures and then we pass on to its use in the book of Esther. In chapter three, we examine the narrative structure of Esther. We begin by providing a syntactical analysis of the verbs so as to individualise the main line of the story, the background information, the legal documents inserted in the narrative and the speeches. The plot is then explained. Secondly, different structures for the whole of the Scroll are proposed. We concur with a fivefold division of the Meghillah in which the complication, turning point and dénouement are doubled. We then examine the vocabulary of violence and revenge as presented in each of the components of this plot. Other aspects of the narration of Esther are also considered, such as characters, the spatial and temporal framework, and the pace at which actions take place. Finally, this chapter applies Meir Sternberg’s universals of the narrative: suspense, curiosity and surprise to the Meghillah. All three are present in our account and they all refer to the dynamics of violence. The exegetical work is carried out in chapters four, five and six. Each of these chapters is dedicated to a significant pericope (2:21–23, 7:1–10 and 9:1– 19) in which the dynamics of violence and revenge are explicitly described. We have chosen these pericopes because of their significance from a narrative point of view. In each of them, we provide a commentary on some textual notes and offer our own translation. Then limits are set for the pericope while its connections with the rest of the Meghillah are explored and a structure is provided. In order to better understand each passage some relevant expressions are studied. Further, evidence to aid a clearer comprehension of these expressions is provided from archaeology and from classical Greek authors. A commentary is made on each of the verses making up the given text. The general conclusions draw from all the insights that our research has found. Thus we hope to show the importance of violence and revenge in the literary composition and the way the different characters are described. Through the means of violence we try to show God’s presence in the Meghillah before extracting some ideas about the relationship between the Jews and their neighbours. 4 Methodology Because violence is more prominent in the Masoretic text, we have limited our research to the Hebrew text of Esther as proposed in the Biblia Hebraica

General Introduction

9

Quinta. At different stages in our study, we refer to the above mentioned Greek texts and deal with questions of textual criticism when necessary.40 Given the thematic approach to the book of Esther we have chosen to employ an array of methods in order to answer the questions posed by the text. There are three main approaches in this work, which we proceed now to illustrate. First we pursue a semantic analysis of terms. Using the tools of narratology and helped by the syntactical method of Alviero Nicacci, we single out the main vocabulary of violence and revenge. In this way we highlight the key words which describe these attitudes in the book of Esther. Then we proceed to study the function of each term or phrase within the structure of the sentence and within the dynamics of the narrative. In the semantic study, we review the use of a given word in the biblical corpus and draw conclusions as to its meaning and importance. These findings are subsequently applied to the Meghillah. Second we examine the plot of Esther. By analysing the syntax of the verbs, we isolate the main thrust of the story and point out what happens in the background and in the speeches. As a result of drawing attention to the different settings, we place the vocabulary already studied into context and take into account how the vocabulary of violence and revenge is applied. Thus, we try to prove the relevance of such terminology in the tale of Esther. Only then do we proceed to the exegetical analysis of Esth 2:21–23; 7:1–10 and 9:1–19. After applying different tools in order to set the limits of each pericope, we proceed to complete a literary analysis in order to propose an inner structure of the given passage, showing that there is a coherence within the text and that the episode is connected to the rest of the Meghillah. In this way, the exegetical work is carried out on these representative scenes, having as a hermeneutical guide the use and importance of violence in the text. Helped by previous theories we place this book in a larger context than the biblical corpus. By comparing some of the ideas present in the Scroll with the writings of some classical authors such as Herodotus or Ctesias we discover that Esther came from a cultural context in which Persians were represented in a particular way. Further, we also apply some findings of archaeology to the material of our study.

40  Cf. D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle.

10 5

General Introduction

Further Developments of this Research

In our research we are aware of some limits due to its nature and the methodology applied. By pointing out these limits we indicate openings for future development in the study of the book of Esther. The first limit of our work is given by the textual complexity of the book of Esther. In our choice we favour the Masoretic text but are well aware that a more complete vision could be provided if an in-depth comparison with the Meghillah’s Greek versions is done. The second limit regards the thematic approach we undertake. Following such a method one can fall into the trap of reading the text from only one angle. We try to be fair to what the Meghillah expounds while highlighting an important theme which has not been treated monographically before. A further development would be a comprehensive integration with some of the other themes singled out in Esther such as power and wealth. The third limit relates to the nature of the pericopes studied. All three passages chosen for a more thorough study are part of the “showing” sections of the Meghillah. Even though in the course of our work we refer to the “telling” expressed in the dialogue between the queen and her husband (7:2–5) and a passing reference to the decrees of annihilation (9:1), further research into the use of violence and of violent vocabulary in the speeches and the legal documents would be beneficial. By the end of this book, we hope to have shown that Esther does not represent one of the cruellest examples of violence, namely, it is not “the killing of others without benefit of judicial procedure”41 but punitive justice is executed for the service of retributive justice and the salvation of all the Jews. 41   J.J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas”, 4.

PART 1 Literary Inquiry into the Book of Esther

∵

CHAPTER 1

The Book of Esther in Context If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?1

⸪ In this first chapter, we will survey some of the studies written on the book of Esther, reviewing the propositions advanced by the investigations on the Meghillah. In this way we will place this study in the context of the preceding scholarship and so derive our conclusions from the previous research. 1 Purim The scroll of Esther has been considered an aetiology of the feast of Purim. However it is not normal for an aetiology to precede the entities it explains but rather be an explanation for something that already exists.2 Hence, we can assume that Purim existed in some form before the book of Esther was written. 1.1 Origins of the Feast The acceptance of the book of Esther in the canon of Scriptures is due to its links to the feast of Purim,3 which became a popular celebration in the second Temple Period. According to the Meghillah, Mordecai instituted the feast in order to celebrate the deliverance of the Jewish nation from Haman’s plot to kill all the Jews (Esth 9:20–28). The book of Esther gives an etymology of

1  W. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act III, Scene I. 2  A. Berlin, Esther, xlv. 3  E. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther”, 225: “The scroll was not canonized and read in the synagogue except as the Purim text”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_003

14

CHAPTER 1

the name Purim (Esth 9:26), as deriving from the Akkadian pūr,4 which means “lot” and refers to the way in which the day of the pogrom had been decided (Esth 3:7). Moreover external evidence points to a pagan origin of Purim rather than to a celebration of a military victory.5 In this perspective, the book of Esther has been interpreted by its relationship to the Babylonian culture.6 The names of Mordecai and Esther were linked with the names of the Babylonian deities Marduk and Ishtar and Haman and Vashti with the Elamite gods Humman and Mashti.7 Thus a first interpretation of the book of Esther would be that the story reflects the enmity between some of the members of the Babylonian pantheon. Following this identification, scholars have looked for a link between Ancient Near Eastern festivals and Purim.8 Some authors assumed that, given the Persian setting of the tale, the origins of Purim should be looked for in Persia. For instance, Helmer Ringgren postulates that Purim exhibits some traits of different Babylonian/Persian festivals. Among these, the feast of Sacae or New Year seems to be the most influencial in the Purim celebrations. This festival included the deposition and crowning of the king, drinking, banquet-

4  There is archaeological evidence of a lot-casting dice with an inscription naming it pūrum, lot. The lot seems to have been cast annually on New Year’s Day as a new vizier began his mandate. It was believed that the events of the year were predetermined when the new official was inaugurated into office, cf. W.W. Hallo, “The First Purim”, 19–29. 5  Rogert E. Herst wrote an article in order to prove that the Esther history was based on the day of Nicanor which commemorates the victory of Judas Maccabee over the Greeks, cf. R.E. Herst, “The Purim Connection”, 139–145. This view, nonetheless, has not been taken up by other commentators. On the possibility of a Greek connection, Maryse Waegeman makes a comparison between the story of Esther and the story of Asparia, a Greek girl in the Persian court; this Greek tragedy seems to have some points in common with the biblical account, cf. M. Waegeman, “Motifs and Structure in the Book of Esther”, 371–384 and J.-D. Macchi, “Le livre d’Esther: écrire une historie”, 207–208. This theory, however, requires a late date of composition for Esther, which seems unlikely. 6  According to Jona Schellekens, the origin of Esther was the accession of Mordecai to the position of viceroy, thus establishing a dynasty of rulers in Exile, cf. J. Schellekens, “Accession Days and Holidays”, 115–132. Interesting though this theory might be, it cannot stand since no evidence of any dynasty which might match the requirements of Schellenkens’ theory has been found. 7  H. Zimmern, “Zur Frage nach dem Ursprunge des Purimfestes”, 157–169. 8  Lewis B. Paton is of the idea that the origin is in Babylonian cult which nonetheless came to the Jews through the medium of Persia, cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 84–94.

The Book Of Esther In Context

15

ing, presents, and persecution of enemies and dissenters.9 On the other hand, Julius Lewy upholds that the Persian festival of Favardigan or Festival of the Dead is behind Purim,10 even though this celebration would have come to the Jews through the Babylonians. Whereas this seems to be a solution to the problem, there is no clear origin for the feast of Purim, since holidays and festivals in the Ancient Near East were not constant in form or content. Questions about the Ancient Near Eastern origin of the feast are not at the forefront of the commentators’ interests nowadays. What perhaps baffles them the most is that a pagan feast was not transformed completely to fit Jewish religious parameters. However, it seems that all scholars agree that the origins of Purim are obscure and that, while it recalls different festivals, both Babylonian and Persian, no single one can be recognised as the sole source for this Jewish feast. 1.2 Liturgical Relationship Between the Book of Esther and Purim Four precepts are associated with Purim: the reading of the Scroll of Esther, the Purim banquet, presents and almsgiving.11 The tenor of the celebration is permissive and jovial, to the point, that when the scroll of Esther is chanted during the synagogue office for the 14th of Adar, those attending the service are allowed to boo at the name of Haman or to raise the voice when the verses of salvation are read out.12 Purim has become the feast of carnival and of reversals, turning society upside down to the point that drinking is allowed till one is not able to distinguish between the blessing of Mordecai and the cursing of Haman (Meg 7b). The relationship between Purim and the Scroll of Esther, which we will be considered later in this chapter, has been long discussed.13 However, at this point, we should bear in mind that the Meghillah can only be understood in its relationship to the feast of Purim.14 Such connections might not be original 9  H. Ringgren, “Esther and Purim”, 23–24; cf. D.F. Polish, “Aspect of Esther”, 95–99. According to Andrè LaCocque, the background must be the Mesopotamian festival of Akitu, or New Year in which the king was dethroned and then re-instated and in which the god Marduk sentenced the fates of the following year, cf. A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 98–100. 10  J. Lewy, “The Feast of the 14th Day of Adar”, 149. 11  M. Pérez Fernández, “La fiesta judía de Purim”, 16. The reading of the Scroll is regulated by the treatise Meghillah of the Mishna (cf. J. Rabbinowitz, Mishna Megillah, 38–137). 12  L. Jacobs, “Purim”, 741. 13  Cf. S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 15 n. 88; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 50–63. 14  A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 90: “Esther without Purim is a crippled assemblage of discontinuous parts, gathered under the sign of pur as chance. Purim elevated chance and transitoriness to the level of destiny and legacy”.

16

CHAPTER 1

but one cannot deny that, in the mind of the final redactor, there was an association between Purim and the Meghillah and such a link had to be kept alive in the minds of the people. Hence Michael V. Fox can write “Jews of subsequent generations, rather than commemorating something that happened to their ancestors, celebrate their ancestors’ experience”.15 Therefore the prayers of the Purim synagogue service remember the events which happened at the time of Esther and call for a renewal of the victory over all the enemies of the Jews, thus encouraging the contemporary reader of the Meghillah. 2

Textual Questions

Esther’s textual history is long and twisted and attests to the process of formation of the canon of Scriptures. Other than the Masoretic text (MT) and two Greek versions, namely the Septuagint (LXX)16 and the Alpha text (A-text),17 there are two Latin translations (the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate), Josephus’ text (Antiquitates Judaicae 11, 184–296), the Peshitta18 and two Targumim, that is, Targum Rishon and Targum Sheni.19 All these numerous versions of Esther, with their variant readings, make scholars hypothesise that there may have been other forms of the text in a Semitic language that have been lost since.20 2.1 Textual Landscape MT Esther21 is a tale of salvation which is achieved through the intervention of two Jews. The story is set in a despotic court ruled by a monarch whose will changes depending on who is providing him with advice. The Meghillah 15   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 152. 16   L XX is also called the B-text, since its best witness is the Codex Vaticanus and o’-text because of the Göttingen Septuagint edition. 17  The A-text is also known as the L-text because it was believed to be the Lucianic recension of the LXX. Carey A. Moore has, however, proved that this view is mistaken, cf. C.A. Moore, “A Greek witness”, 358; Id., Esther, lxii; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 72; M.V. Fox, The Redaction of the Book of Esther, 14–17. 18  While the Leiden critical edition of the book of Esther is produced the only available one is Hanhart’s. For an overview of the relation between the Syriac version and the others, see O. Munnich, “La Peshitta d’Esther”, 75–90. 19  B. Grossfeld, ed., The Two Targum of Esther. For an overview of the rabbinical interpretation of Esther, see A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 163–225. 20  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 166. 21  We will follow the text of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), which reproduces the Codex Leningradensis. This text is “a stabilized text where no emendation seems to be needed”

The Book Of Esther In Context

17

is not a religious tale and God is not the main actor in the drama of liberation. God is not mentioned; neither Jerusalem, nor Jewish religious practices, such as prayer, sacrifice or dietary regulations. Salvation and deliverance are solely the responsibility of Esther and Mordecai, who achieved them by the slaughter of the enemies of the Jews once the crisis had passed (Esth 9:14–15.16). Thus Mordecai becomes a model of Jewish conduct in the court of a tyrant.22 The Meghillah’s ‘secular’ characteristics, coupled with the book’s violence have made its acceptance difficult. Some authors postulate that the name of God was present and then was edited out by the final redactor of MT.23 Whether this was the case or not, a conscious decision was made not to mention God, even though God’s presence is felt through the series of coincidences and reversals of fortunes which appear in this book. The Septuagint24 follows the MT,25 even though at places MT is translated freely or paraphrased.26 At a first reading there are two major differences between MT and LXX: the Masoretic text is enlarged by six additions which are named A, B, C, D, E and F27 and God is explicitly named and invoked. Thus, the and comparison with other witnesses “shows no major but only minor, mainly orthographic, differences” (M. Sæbø, Megilloth, 21*). 22  K. De Troyer – M.-T. Wacker, “Esther. Das Buch Ester”, 1262–1263. 23   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 264: “R-MT [the redactor of MT] did not expand the religious dimensions of the drama. If the references to God in the proto AT were present in proto Esther, R-MT pushed God farther into the background”. According to Lisbeth S. Fried, there is no logical explanation as to why a redactor would have deleted the mentions of God and all the other religious experiences in order to create a text, L.S. Fried, “Towards the Ur-Text of Esther”, 56. 24  The text of the LXX is attested in fifty three manuscripts (C. Cavalier, Esther, 25) of which codices B, ‫ א‬and A and two papyri are the LXX’s most ancient witnesses. Cf. D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 33. For a complete list of witnesses and discussion on them, see R. Hanhart, Esther, 7–16. 45–87; cf. C. Cavalier, “La quatrième face”, 90–99. 25  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 69: “Almost everyone agrees, however, that no matter how free the Septuagint translator has been, it is essentially the Masoretic Hebrew text that was his Vorlage”. 26   L.S. Fried, “Towards the Ur-Text of Esther”, 49: “The B-text which remains after the Adds are removed has been shown to be paraphrased translation of the MT”. For Levenson LXX depends on a different Vorlage and not on the Masoretic text, “In the main, the Greek version [LXX] is itself a translation of a lost Hebrew original that was quite close to the MT but not, as we shall see, identical to it” (J.D. Levenson, Esther, 27). 27  The origin of these additions, whether they reflect a Greek or a Semitic Vorlage, has been widely studied though no agreement has been reached. There is some accord that additions B and D were written originally in Greek, whereas there are different opinions about the origin of the other additions. Moore’s opinion is that additions B, D, E are of Greek

18

CHAPTER 1

text is changed quantitatively by the addition of 106 verses and qualitatively by the mention of God and the inclusion of several prayers. The additions, which are set in the body of the text,28 together with the free rendering of the translation, significantly change the story of Esther. The Greek additions make the text of Esther more readable for a religious audience and also make it more appealing to a pagan readership which might be put off by the excessive violence of MT. Furthermore, these additions follow the Jewish style of narrating of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and other parts of the Scriptures and thus insert LXX Esther in the biblical tradition.29 The A-text30 fascinates authors and has been the focus of many studies.31 It also contains the six additions but is slightly shorter than LXX.32 Despite its origin whereas additions A, C, F are Semitic (cf. C.A. Moore, “On the Origins”, 382–393); Martin follows him and demonstrates his hypothesis, even though he does not take a position about addition F which could be either written originally in Greek or a free translation of a Semitic Vorlage (cf. R.A. Martin, “Syntax Criticism”, 65–72); in Clines’s view, while additions B and E seem to have been written originally in Greek, additions A, C, D, F come from a Semitic original (cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 69); also E. Tov, “The Lucianic Text”, 11 and C.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther 224–225. According to Fox, B and E were written originally in Greek and perhaps F also, whereas C and D are Semitic and A is uncertain, (M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 265–266). For Levenson, B and E were certainly written in Greek and A, C, and D are probably translations of a Semitic source, F’s origins remain uncertain (J.D. Levenson, Esther, 29). J. Vílchez upholds that all the additions have been written originally in Greek but by different authors (J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 174). 28   C.A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah, 168: “It is a serious mistake to read the Additions out of context, i.e., either after reading the canonical portion (as in the Vulgate) or without any canonical text at all (as in most ‘Protestant’ Bibles, e.g. KJ, RSV, NEB, et alia)”. 29  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 169–170; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 30–31. The Greek versions explain how God is behind the events of history, provide a basis for an understanding of the story of the Jewish people and how the message of the Meghillah could be made meaningful for their contemporary circumstances (cf. J. Middlemas, “The Greek Esthers”, 151–161). 30  The A-text is found in four minuscules: 19 (Chigi R. VI 38), 93a, 108 (Vat. gr. 330) and 319 from the 10th and 13th centuries, cf. D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 37. The A-text was first edited by Paul A. de Lagarde, cf. P.A. de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum, 504–541. Clines reproduces this text and provides an English translation (D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 215–248). For a history of the different editions of the text, see D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 71–72. 31   H.J. Cook, “The A Text”, 369–376; M.V. Fox, “The Redaction”, 207–220; C.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther; K. de Troyer, The End of the Alpha-Text of Esther; J.-C. Haelewyck, “Le texte dit lucianique”, 5–44. For a complete bibliography of the Greek versions see E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 12–22. 32   M.V. Fox, Redaction, 11, 48–50; cf. C.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther, 14–16.

The Book Of Esther In Context

19

similarities to LXX, the A-text includes some material which is not present in either the LXX or MT and which attests to a different Vorlage:33 1. A-text lacks the theme of the immutability of the Persian law; 2. The story of the conspiracy of the eunuchs in A-text is only told once, in Addition A; 3. A-text omits the expansion of the battles reports, the second day of fighting and celebration, the Purim aetiology and the epilogue in 10:1–3. 4. A-text magnifies the role of Mordecai over Esther’s, emphasises the political dynamics of the Jews in relationship to the pagan empire and shows that the Jews set in influential positions are beneficial not only to their fellow Jews but also to the king and the empire. The Vetus Latina34 is a Latin translation of the LXX made around the 2nd century CE whereas the Vulgate is a translation of the MT produced by Jerome around the 4th century CE. In the Vulgate, Jerome puts the additions which are scattered in the Greek text altogether at the end of his translation of the Hebrew text. However, in this way, the additions lose their meaning since they are removed from their natural context.35 Each of these versions of Esther differs from the other and reflects different stages in the development of the text. Thus the book of Esther is a clear example of how the biblical text was composed, transmitted and interpreted even after the Masoretic text was established. 2.2 Qumran Fragments A mention should be made of the absence of the book of Esther in Qumran. Esther is the only biblical text which has not yet been found in Qumran. While one could argue that the small size of the book accounts for its nonappearance in the Qumran library, some scholars claim that the members of the Qumran community had theological reasons for not accepting the Meghillah.36 The Essenes would not have agreed with the violent content of the Scroll nor would they have approved its secular outline which mentions neither God nor religious practices. Further, the feast of Purim is not found in the list of festivals

33   C.A. Moore, “A Greek Witness”, 355–357; H.J. Cook, “The A Text”, 373. 34  For the text for the Vetus latina from Alcalá, see J.-C. Haelewyck, “La version latine du livre d’Esther”, 166–182. The author adds in the remaining pages of his article, his own analyse and a collection of patristic witnesses citing this text. Cf. Also J.-C. Haelewyck, “The Relevance”, 439–473; C. Cavalier, “La quatrième face”, 91–96; D. Candido, “Alcune significative varianti”, 23–43. 35  E. Tov, “Three Strange Books”, 381: “This action was arbitrary and inconsistent and thus he [St. Jerome] mutilated the translation”. 36  Cf. A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 131–135.

20

CHAPTER 1

kept at the Qumran and thus it seems logical that the Qumran community rejected the book which was at the basis of such a festival.37 In 1992, Józef T. Milik38 published those fragments found in Qumran he considered to be parts of a prototype of the A-text and which seemed to resemble the story of Esther. 4Q550 is a group of six Aramaic fragments39 describing the story of a Jew who serves in the Persian court during the reign of Xerxes. These fragments also contain a prayer uttered by a Jew in exile, the dialogue between the king and a female character who becomes his wife as well as the description of a conflict between a Jew and a non-Jew in the court of Xerxes because the latter refuses to bow to the former. In all these fragments, some characteristics are similar to the book of Esther and others are different. Nonetheless, Milik found sufficient parallels in settings, plot and details between the Meghillah and 4Q550 to postulate that he had found an antecedent of Esther in Qumran. From the evidence found and the arguments proposed, some in agreement with Milik and some in disagreement,40 we can presume that, even though no textual proof for the existence of a copy of Esther in Qumran has been found, the story was known by the Qumranic community.41 4Q550 bears witness to the genre of the Jew in a foreign court, a genre attested in Palestine. Hence one cannot speak of literary dependence between 4Q550 and any of the versions of Esther but only of characteristics common to the cultural milieu which produced both documents.

37  J. VanderKam – P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 119–120. 38   J.T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther”, 321–399. This article includes the transcription of the Aramaic texts, a translation and a commentary. At the end of the article Milik publishes photographs of some of those manuscripts. 39  These six groups of fragments found in Cave 4 are called by Milik 4Qpr(oto-) Esth(er) ar(amen)a, 4QPrEstharb and so on to 4QPrEsthar f. They constitute, in the mind of Milik, “de ‘proto-Esther’, de ‘modèles’, d’ ‘archétypes’, de ‘sources’, des versions du livre d’Esther conservées en Hébreu, Grec, Latin (et jusqu’à un passage en Arménien)”, cf. J.T. Milik, “Les modèles”, 321. 40  Cf. C.C. Torrey, “The Older Book of Esther”, 9; J. Starcky, “Le travail”, 66; J. Ben-Dov, “A Presumed Citation”, 282–284; M.G. Wechsler, “Two Para-Biblical Novellae”, 163–172; S. White Crawford, “Has Esther been Found at Qumran?”, 325; Id., “4QTales of Persian Court”, 121–137; S. Talmon, “Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?”, 256; K. De Troyer, “Once more”, 411–419; R. Kossmann, Die Esthernovelle, 255–291. 41  K. De Troyer, “Once more”, 421: “I agree with Talmon that the Biblical book of Esther was probably known in Qumran. Moreover, I underline that there are references to the Hebrew book of Esther, and not to the Alpha-text of Esther”.

The Book Of Esther In Context

21

2.3 Relation Between the Different Texts After looking at the textual landscape and the contribution of the Qumran discoveries, many questions posed by the books of Esther are still unanswered.42 The variety of versions of Esther calls for an explanation and many suggestions have been given as to how they were formed and what the relationship between them is.43 We agree with the need to suggest that texts, which since have disappeared, existed. Through this hypothesis, we can explain the puzzle presented by the textual variety of the story of Esther. The two branches of Esther’s genealogical tree, that is the MT and A-text, are independent but at the same time somehow related due to a hypothetical common origin. They are cousins rather than sister-versions and they do not represent conflicting tales but attest to the fluidity of composition of biblical texts by the time of the final redaction of the book of Esther. According to us each version should be taken on its own since each one represents a different tradition and an independent development of the original material. Notwithstanding the importance of the studies on the history of redaction of the book of Esther, we will base our research on those texts which are well attested, namely, MT and LXX with occasional references to A-text. This choice is based on the evidence provided, accepted and transmitted by believing communities.44 3

Literary Dimensions

Esther is a great example of literary composition45 and its author knew how to adopt the different biblical models available at his time. Beside the biblical style and the reinterpretation of biblical stories, other features of the story 42  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 165: “La verdad es que no existe ningún libro de la sagrada Escritura que suscite tantos interrogantes acerca del texto como el libro de Ester”. 43  For a history of the research, see K. de Troyer, The End of the Alpha-Text of Esther, 15–37. Also see M.V. Fox, Redaction; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll; C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther; L.S. Fried, “Towards the Ur-Text of Esther”; C. Cavalier, Esther, 32–37 (for a summary of the different solutions). Jobes provides a table in which he compares the three versions of the text (cf. Appendix, C.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther). 44  Thus we follow the judgement and praxis of Candido in D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 344–349. 45   J.A. Loader, “Esther as a Novel” 418: “A synchronous analysis proves the book [of Esther] to be one of the finest literary products in the Bible”. W.L. Humphreys, “The Story of Esther and Mordecai”, 101: “Against the backdrop so lavish and yet so ominous, a plot unfolds that

22

CHAPTER 1

come to the fore when studying the Meghillah. In this section we will evaluate the discussions which have taken place in recent times about the Scroll’s literary genre, the way the different characters of the story are portrayed, the structures that have been postulated for the entire book and other rhetorical devices employed. 3.1 Literary Genre The reader of the Meghillah finds different sorts of compositions in the book of Esther: narrations, letters, laws and decrees among others and hence he or she cannot identify easily a single genre which would encompass all the others. Thus the question of Esther’s literary genre is complicated and highly debated.46 Nonetheless we will try to point out some of the possibilities which have been suggested so as to help our reading of the Meghillah.47 3.1.1 History Until the 18th century the book of Esther was considered a historical account of something that happened during the Persian period.48 Some of the data that appears in the book is quite plausible, such as the names of eunuchs and of Haman’s sons or the attempt against the life of Ahasuerus who was murdered by his own palace officials.49 On the other hand, with the rise of the historical critical method and the study of the different genres, the view that what is recounted in the book of Esther is not true has been confirmed. Some of the details that appear in the Meghillah are unprovable or not accurate, such as the number of satrapies, that a non-Persian would become queen or vizier of the empire, the exaggerated length of the royal banquet or the height of the gallows erected by Haman.50

can only be judged a gem of literary composition”; Cf. J.G. Baldwin, Esther, 24; F. Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative”, 44. 46  For summaries see M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 141–152; F.W. Bush, Esther, 297–309. 47  E. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther”, 225: “Many factors influence our responses to a story, what we understand to be the literary genre of a particular work will color our reading by setting up the initial and perhaps even the ensuing expectations against which we will measure our reactions”. 48  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 184. 49   T.K. Beal, Esther, xv–xvii. 50  For a summary of arguments both against and in favour of the historicity of the book of Esther see D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 257–261; also M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 131–138. 148–150; L.B. Paton, Esther, 64–77.

The Book Of Esther In Context

23

Even though there might be some historical kernel to the tale,51 no one considers the book of Esther as a historical account nowadays.52 Adele Berlin proposes the following solution to the question of Esther’s historicity: “actually it may be more correct to conclude that the ancients did not care about historical accuracy, although they surely cared about the past”.53 3.1.2 Wisdom Tale Talmon interprets the book of Esther as a historicised wisdom tale.54 In this way he accounted for Esther’s ‘deficiencies’, namely the absence of God and religious practice and the lack of interest in Jewish life and history. Whereas he finds examples of proverbial language in Esther (Esth 5:3.7; 6:13; 7:2), “what the Esther narrative in fact does is to portray applied wisdom”55 as represented by the main characters. James L. Crenshaw on the other hand criticised Talmon’s arguments and declared that “it is difficult to conceive a book more alien to wisdom literature than Esther”.56 One by one, Crenshaw refutes Talmon’s arguments pointing to the wisdom characteristics in Esther. All these things make Crenshaw conclude that “you would do well to think twice before venturing in that direction [direct wisdom influence]”.57 Crenshaw’s approach has been somewhat developed by Kevin McGeough58 who postulates a third way. He proposes that there are some wisdom traits in the story of Esther, such as the descriptions of Haman and Ahasuerus as the people to avoid. Conversely, Esther and Mordecai do not follow wisdom’s guidelines of good conduct. They supersede these conceptions because they are faced with extraordinary circumstances and, in order to deal with them, they, and in particular Esther, develop heroic attitudes.

51  R. Gordis, “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther”, 386: “Clearly the Book of Esther is not a historical work in the modern sense of the term. It represents a traditional reworking of what may well have been a real historical incident”. 52   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 25: “The book of Esther is best seen as a historical novella set within the Persian empire. This is not to say that the book is false, only that its truth, like the truth of any piece of literature, is relative to its genre, and the genre of Esther is not that of historical annal (though it sometimes imitates the style of a historical annal)”. 53  A. Berlin, “The Book of Esther”, 5. 54  S. Talmon, “ ‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther”, 426. 55  S. Talmon, “ ‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther”, 427. 56   J.L. Crenshaw, “Method”, 141. 57   J.L. Crenshaw, “Method”, 142. Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 142–143. 58  K. McGeough, “Esther the Hero”, 44–65.

24

CHAPTER 1

We favour the view that the Meghillah has no wisdom influences because it lacks wisdom language and images and that its genre should be looked for elsewhere. 3.1.3 Novella According to Humphreys the Hebrew Bible shows examples of novellas in the stories of Samson (Judges 13–16), Joseph (Genesis 37–50) and Esther.59 Judith and Tobit are also examples of such novellas within the deutero-canonical books.60 Humphreys analyses the Meghillah with regard to the setting of the story in time and space, the plot, the narrative techniques, the characterisation, the intention and the setting in life. The author’s intention, which he achieves successfully, was to show the possibility of living full lives in the Diaspora during times of threat. Lawrence M. Wills takes this view a step further and compares the literary works which are the product of the late Hellenistic period with the Greek novels. He studies Tobit, Judith and Greek Daniel as well as putting MT Esther alongside its Greek versions.61 Taking into account this comparison, he agrees that MT Esther has a privileged place in the progress of narrative art and the development of the characteristics of the ancient novel even though it “remains ambiguous as to its moment in the evolution of the novelistic tradition”.62 Sara R. Johnson develops the idea that MT Esther is part of the creation of the Hebrew novellas even though she upholds that it is misleading to call these biblical works novellas because such a category is associated with Greek literature. Instead she proposes the denomination ‘Jewish fictions’, a term which refers to a broad category rather than to a specific genre.63 Johnson dates the composition of the Meghillah to the early Hellenistic period because there are no Greek influences on the text such as loanwords. Hence the novelistic elements in Esther cannot be attributed to the direct influence of Greek fictions but on the contrary should be looked for in the literary production of the second Temple period.64 Her research brings her to 59  Humphreys defines a novella as “a type of prose narrative that stands between the novel and the short story, sharing the characteristics of each” (W.L. Humphreys, “Novella”, 82). 60   W.L. Humphreys, “Novella”, 85. 61   L.M. Wills, The Jewish Novel, 93–131. 62   L.M. Wills, The Jewish Novel, 115. 63   S.R. Johnson, “Novelistic Elements in Esther”, 575. 64  Bush shares the same opinion and dates the Meghillah to the period between the late Persian and the early Hellenistic era. The positive attitude towards the gentiles would

The Book Of Esther In Context

25

the conclusion that “we may be seeing, both in Greek and Hebrew literature of the fourth century, the result of a formerly “close” society being opened to the influence of cultures around it, leading to the development of innovative forms of literary fiction simultaneously on different fronts”.65 After comparing Esther with Ezra, Johnson points out that there was a tendency in biblical literature to create fictional history in credible form and that such a tendency developed completely in the creation of historical fictions such as Esther. Moreover the book of Esther offers an example of a phenomenon common to the Greek and Jewish authors who wrote fictions on the question of Persian rule.66 Thus many of the features of the story of Esther could be explained as part of an international story telling.67 This Greek influence, which is found also in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Judith, could be traced to some of the classical fifth century authors, such as Herodotus.68 Herodotus in this way becomes the source for much of our information about the Persian court in the times of Xerxes and of how such a life was viewed. Therefore, “Esther typifies storytelling about Persian from the Persian period. It takes some of its motifs from biblical literature, and it partakes of many others from the broader literary world of its time, preserved for us most abundantly in the Greek writings”.69

presuppose that the Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ crisis had not yet taken place (c. IV century BCE) (cf. F.W. Bush, Esther, 297). See also J.G. Baldwin, Esther, 48–49. Contrary to this theory is LaCocque’s assumption that sets the final redaction of the Meghillah more towards the second century (cf. A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 33–34). 65   S.R. Johnson, “Novelistic Elements in Esther”, 589; cf. M. Heltzer, “On Two Similar Motives”, 219–221. 66  A. Berlin, Esther, xxviii: “Esther should be seen as part of the same literary context from which the Greek writings emerged. Esther and the Greek works share a set of literary motifs and stereotypes relating to Persian court life”. Hence Berlin quotes classical authors in her commentary in order to show the relationship between the Greek authors and the book of Esther, cf. Id., “The Book of Esther”, 9–11. 67  J.-D. Macchi, “Le livre d’Esther: regard hellénistique sur le pouvoir”, 131: “Le livre d’Esther est en quelque sore le ‘Persica’ des Juifs, une fiction historique créée à partir des canons de l’historiographie grecque”. 68  A. Momigliano, “Eastern Elements”, 25–35. 69  A. Berlin, “The Book of Esther”, 14; cf. J.-D. Macchi, “Le livre d’Esther: regard hellénistique sur le pouvoir”, 106–113; Id., “Le livre d’Esther: écrire une historie perse comme un Grec”, 221–225; Id., “The Book of Esther”, 124–127. See also the study by Yoshinori Sano on the representation of Persian life by Greek authors (Y. Sano, “The Representation of the Persian Empire”, 197–203, especially enlightening, 197–199).

26

CHAPTER 1

3.1.4 Diasporanovelle Humphreys studies the biblical stories set in the Diaspora (Jonah, story of Joseph, Ruth, Daniel) and singles out Esther, the story of Joseph and Daniel 1–6 as belonging to a group of narratives which share certain characteristics.70 These stories deal with a Jewish protagonist who prospers at the court of a foreign ruler while the Jews, either as a people or as individuals are threatened with death by an opponent who uses trickery against them. The foreign king is described as favourable to the Jews and, after a moment of crisis, he saves them. Thus the Jewish protagonist is caught up in a double alliance, to the foreign king and to the Jewish people. The Diaspora stories aim at encouraging the Jews to face the problems of life outside the land of Israel, showing what their relationship with the pagans should be and how to live in faithfulness to their Jewish identity.71 Each of these stories tries to achieve this goal from its own angle and so, belonging to the same genre does not mean that they depend on each other but only that some of their characteristics are similar. The book of Esther is considerably different from other stories set in the Diaspora since it does not give advice on how to survive as a Jew in a foreign land or how to be faithful to the Jewish tradition. Neither Esther nor Mordecai is a pious individual who abides by the laws of Israel. Berlin explains that the Diasporanovellen, and in particular Esther, were written in order to provide a link between the exilic community and biblical Israel.72 Thus the Meghillah is inserted in the literary context of the Diaspora and from a different viewpoint to its contemporary literary works aims at achieving a similar end: to encourage the Jewish nation and to connect the Diaspora community with its past. 3.1.5 Festival Lection The main problem with the views set out above is that they do not explain the end of MT Esther, which associates the Meghillah with the feast of Purim. As already said, according to some authors the intention of the final authorredactor of Esther was to create a festival aetiology.73 Moreover in the mind of the author-redactor, the book of Esther was written not only to explain why Purim was celebrated but also to impose its celebration (9:26–27) and justify 70   W.L. Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora”, 211–213; A. Meinhold, Das Buch Esther, 14–17; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 145–148; L.M. Wills, The Jew in the Court; A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 5. 71   W.L. Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora”, 223. 72  A. Berlin, Esther, xxxv–xxxvi. 73   F.W. Bush, Esther, 306; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 158–167; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 32–33.

The Book Of Esther In Context

27

why it should be celebrated as a memorial (9:38). The joy of the deliverance is to be expressed yearly and the celebration involves the solemn retelling of the story. Following this command, people will remember what God had done in the past and so make it present to the current reader of the Meghillah. Hence the genre of the Scroll cannot be removed from the feast of Purim, making the book of Esther a festival lection.74 3.2 Characterisation Whereas the opinion of some scholars is that there is no change in the characters but only in the plot,75 others think that the author of Esther was a master in characterisation and development.76 The author of Esther describes the inner emotions and intentions of some of the characters as well as the shallowness of others but on no occasion gives a moral judgement of any of the characters, other than Haman who is described as “an evil man, the adversary and the enemy” (cf. Esth 7:6). In a way, he describes them as types, or even caricatures.77 Some scholars have shown a great interest in how the different versions of the story of Esther characterise the protagonists. Each one of the characters has been studied, either as they appear in one version78 or as part of a comparison with the other versions.79 We will analyse these characters from the point of view of their involvement in violence in chapter 3 of this book. 3.3 Structure Consensus on the structure of the Meghillah has not yet been reached80 and hence we will examine some of the most representative positions. Clines81 advocates a classical structure for the book of Esther consisting of an exposition (Esth 1–2); complication and its resolution (3:2–9:19) and a conclusion (9:20–10:3). Clines is convinced, however, that the original plot of the

74   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 152; F.W. Bush, Esther, 306. 75  S. Talmon, “ ‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther”, 440; cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, liii: “His [the author’s] emphasis was on plot and action, not character or personality”. 76   L.M. Wills, The Jewish Novel, 115: “Esther is depicted as a developing character who changes—in one scene—from timid, withdrawn figure to one who is bold and assertive, giving commands to Mordecai and her people”. 77   L.M. Day, Esther, 5–6. 78   F.W. Bush, Esther, 314–323. 79  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 63–139. 243–325. 80  See the chart comparing some of the proposed structures for MT Esther: C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther, 22–23. 81  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 9–30.

28

CHAPTER 1

book of Esther finished with chapter 8 and that chapters 9 and 10 were later additions in order to link the tale of Esther with the celebration of Purim. Yehuda T. Radday suggests a chiastic structure for the book of Esther which would have the king’s insomnia (Esth 6:1) as its centre. This verse would organise the series of reversals82 and work as a hinge with the result that many expressions, words and images are set in chapters 1–5 and then echoed in chapters 6–10. Radday places the triumph of each of these characters in the middle of each section and interprets that these two subdivisions balance each other.83 Thus the king’s insomnia is both a miracle and the turning point of the history.84 Fox points out that the story is structured chronologically. He proposes a further subdivision into twelve acts. The core (middle) of the drama (Esth 3:1–8:17) is prepared by an introduction (ch. 1–2) and followed by the battle reports and the conclusion to the book (9:1–10:3). Basing his studies on Berg’s hypothesis,85 Fox organises the book of Esther around the motif of banqueting/feasting and the theme of reversal.86 These reversals hinge on Esth 6:9 which marks the changeover of what Fox calls thesis and antithesis.87 Frederic W. Bush proposes an arrangement of the book of Esther by analysing the discourse roles of the narrative. In his view, the text is divided into setting (chaps. 1–2); problem (chap. 3); complication (chaps. 4–8); resolution (8:1–9:5); denouement which tells of the institution of Purim (9:6–32) and a final coda (10:1–3). Bush’s achievements are to incorporate the importance of Purim and to postulate that the plot follows a conflict-resolution structure.88 82  Cf. Y.T. Radday, “Chiasmus”, 54–57. See also W.T. McBride, “Esther passes”, 211–223; R. Pierce, “The Politics”, 75–89 and Levenson’s theory of double chiasm (J.D. Levenson, Esther, 1). 83  Some other authors look for a turning point with which to organise their structuring of Esther. Bechtel takes up Levenson’s idea of a V-shape structure with its turning point in Esth 6:1, cf. C.M. Bechtel, Esther, 6; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 7; J. Grossman, Esther, 13–14. 84   Y.T. Radday, “Chiasmus”, 57. The Rabbis see in Mordecai’s sleeplessness an action of God. 85  We will study Berg’s work in detail later. She bases her study on similarities of content and phraseology and has as its guiding principle the theme of reversal, which culminates with the victory of Purim. In her view, the turning point is Esth 4:13–14 (cf. S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 106–110). 86   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 154–158. 87  For a table with the summary of this thesis-anti thesis see M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 159–162. There is a variety of opinions about the central or turning point of the book: according to Radday 6:1 is the center, in Fox’s view it is 9:1 while Berg places it in 4:13–14. However, a story as complex as Esther could have more than one turning point. 88   F.W. Bush, Esther, 300–306.

The Book Of Esther In Context

29

Forrest S. Weiland also describes the structure of Esther as a conflictresolution.89 There are three conflicts, one between Vashti and Ahasuerus, another one between Haman and Mordecai and a third one, which develops from the second, between Haman and the Jewish community. Catherine Vialle90 develops Weiland’s idea of the double threat in order to propose her structure of the book of Esther. According to her duality is inherent in the story and hence she proposes that after an exposition (1:1–3:2a), there are two complications which run parallel: complication A (3:2b–5:14) and complication B (3:6–5:14) and a first turning point which is Haman’s fall (6:1–7:10). Corresponding to the two threats, there are two denouements (8:1–2 and 9) divided by the second turning point (8:3–17). The book finishes with the description of the final situation (chap. 10). All these episodes are part of a unified plot which can be described as following a resolution plan.91 Out of the different hypotheses we have studied, we favour Vialle’s structure because it gives a clearer view of the exposition,92 takes into account the unity of the text and deals with the complexity of the plot understanding it in a linear rather than chiastical way. Thus her theory respects the nature of the story and the intention of its author. 3.4 Reinterpretation of Biblical Stories The book of Esther is the result of a long biblical tradition from which it draws some of its concepts and ideas.93 For instance, the author of the Meghillah imitated the style of the book of Kings by using similar expressions such as “are they not written upon the books of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?”, (Esth 10:2; cf 1 Kgs 15:7; 16:14; 22:39; 2 Kgs 8:23; 10:34; 12:20; 13:8,12; 15:21) making the story more biblical rather than more historical.94

89   F.S. Weiland, “Plot Structure in the Book of Esther”, 277. 90  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 8–14. 91  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 13: “D’ autre part, l’intrigue d’ Esther est clairement une intrigue de résolution: tous le efforts de Mordocaï et d’Esther tendent à faire échouer le funeste projet d’Haman contre les juifs. Le suspense majeur consiste à savoir s’ils y parviendront, et par quels moyens”. 92  The exposition should introduce all the main characters (cf. J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 21–25). Haman, who is one of the main characters, is not introduced till 3:1, hence the exposition cannot finish before this verse. 93  A.-M. Wetter, “On her Account”, 117: “He [the author] places his book within the discourse of Israel, and only a reader familiar with this discourse will automatically insert the correct information at the correct points”. 94  A. Berlin, “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling”, 7; cf. L.M. Day, Esther, 18.

30

CHAPTER 1

Hence, a correct understanding of the Meghillah should be based on the biblical sources that the author of Esther reinterpreted. The most important stories which have been linked with Esther are the Joseph story, the Exodus story and 1 Samuel 15. At the end of the nineteenth century Ludwig A. Rosenthal exposed the connections between the story of Joseph and the books of Esther and Daniel.95 He based his comparison on words and expressions and, even though some of his views are somewhat forced, most scholars agree that there is an influence of the Joseph’s story on the book of Esther. Arndt Meinhold developed Rosenthal’s ideas96 exploring the parallels between both stories at the levels of literary features, themes and structure. However, he reorders the verses in both stories so as to make them fit with the proposed structure.97 Berg shows that even though everyone realises the dependence between the story of Joseph and the book of Esther, the borrowing from Joseph is not as obvious as first thought. Nonetheless the author of Esther was familiar with the tale of Joseph and drew some motifs, vocabulary and images from it.98 In Gillis Gerleman’s view, the main key in order to understand the book of Esther is the story of Exodus.99 Neither exodus nor the Passover are mentioned in the book of Esther but the annihilation of the Jews was decreed on the thirteenth of Nisan, as the Jews were preparing for Passover the following day (Esth 3:12). Furthermore, both stories deal with the salvation of the chosen people from an enemy. However, the only way Gerleman has of explaining the secular nature of the Meghillah is by saying that the author was doing a conscientious desacralization and detheologization of the exodus tradition.100 Gerleman’s ideas have been criticised by showing that the parallels or influences he pointed out were due to storytelling and were neither dominant nor prevailing. Additionally, he does not account for the differences between these two tales.101 95   L.A. Rosenthal, “Die Josephgeschichte”, 277–283. 96  A. Meinhold, “Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte I”, 306–324; “Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte II”, 72–93; cf. S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 123–142; K. Butting, “Esther”, 239–248; A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 79–85. 97  Cf. S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 135.157 n. 52. 98  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 142. 99  G. Gerleman, Studien zu Esther, 7–28; Id., Esther; 11–23. Id., Studien zu Esther, 10–11: “Alle wesentlichen Züge der Esthererzählung sind in Ex 1–12 schon da, der fremde Hof, die tödliche Bedrohung, die Rettung, die Rache, der Triumph und die Stiftung eines Festes”; cf. A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 90–96. 100  G. Gerleman, Esther, 23. 101  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 6–8.

The Book Of Esther In Context

31

A further biblical reference appears in the genealogies of Mordecai and Haman.102 Mordecai is presented as “the son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite” (Esth 2:5). Among the different options for such lineage, the most plausible choice is to make Mordecai a descendant of king Saul. On the other hand Haman is introduced as “son of Hammedatha the Agagite”103 (Esth 3:1). Agag was a king of Amalek against whom Saul fought (1 Samuel 15). Hence, the reader can trace the enmity between Mordecai and Haman to Saul and Agag whereas Haman’s hostility against the Israelites dates back to the beginnings of Israel’s history when the Israelites fought against the Amalekites (Exod 17:8–16; cf. Num 14:43–45; Deut 25:17–19).104 Whereas Mordecai is the descendant of the people of Israel, Haman is the heir of their enemies and thus the story of Esther tells how the Israelites finally defeat the prototype of all their enemies. Because of this historical connection, one understands the reason why in the Esther story the Jewish people did not lay hand on the booty (Esth 9:10.15.16), thus correcting the mistake of the Israelites at the time of Saul when they kept part of the spoils which should have been destroyed (1 Sam 15:9).105 Consequently the Meghillah could be interpreted as a midrash of 1 Samuel 15.106

102  Cf. W. McKane, “A Note on Esther IX and 1 Samuel XV”; E. Haag, “Das Esterbuch”, 19–41; D.G. Firth, “When Samuel met Esther”, 22–27; A.-M. Wetter, “How Jewish is Esther”, 596–603. 103  According to Macchi, this interpretation is the result of an “accident textuel”. He believes that the oldest text of Esther is the A-text and so he tries to explains the differences between the two names given to Haman, ‫( ָה ֲאגָ גִ י‬Agagite) in MT and Βουγαῖος (Bougaios) in the Greek versions. Βουγαῖος refers to pride and would correspond with the Hebrew ‫גאה‬. A double scribal error (change in the letter order and a subsequence duplication of ‫)ג‬ would have changed the name of the Haman when the original Vorlage was translated into Hebrew. This mistake in Esth 3:1 influenced the rest of the book and the interpretation of story (cf. J.-D. Macchi, “Haman, l’orgueilleux”, 210–214; also D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 195, n 353). With this theory, Macchi tries to keep the primacy of the A-text as a witness to the earliest Vorlage, however we retain that such a hypothesis cannot be proved due to lack of evidence. 104  The Torah reading for Purim morning is Exodus 17:8–16 whereas the reading for Sabbath before Purim is Deut 25:17–19 (cf. L. Jacobs, “Purim”, 741). 105   L.B. Paton, Esther, 167. 106  A. LaCocque, “The Different Versions of Esther”, 303. According to LaCocque, even though Gerleman’s insights are interesting, he is wrong in considering that Esther replaces exodus. Following the theory of intertextuality, both stories interpret each other and do not replace each other. The hermeneutical key to understand their relation is carnival.

32

CHAPTER 1

The book of Esther has also been connected to Chronicles107 and some other books such as Judith108 and 3 Maccabees.109 The composition of the book of Esther is complex and, as Jonathan Grossman has argued there is not a straight correspondence between a single biblical story and a character in Esther.110 When reading the Meghillah one has to take into account all the different scriptural echoes so that they may enhance one’s understanding of the message hidden in the story of Esther. 3.5 Irony/Sarcasm Bruce W. Jones studied the role of humour in the book of Esther111 and so did Radday.112 F.B. Huey furthered the role of irony as an interpretative key for the Meghillah,113 which was followed by Kenneth M. Craig’s monograph on Esther as an example of carnivalesque literature.114 This concept was picked up by Berlin who argues that the best way of interpreting Esther is “as a farce or a comedy associated with a carnival-like festival”.115 The canonisation of Esther meant that the Meghillah was not taken solely as a comical work.116 Berlin also speaks of the book of Esther as “burlesque” mocking reality with hilarious results.117 The reason for irony in the book of Esther is the survival of a persecuted nation and the encouragement of those who were forced to live among the gentiles.118 Thus laughing at the absurdity of the Persian court encourages the Jews not to take Persians or other foreigners sternly. 107  S. Berg, “After the Exile”, 107–114. 108  In this case, however, the dependence is of Judith on Esther and not the other way round. Cf. S. White Crawford, “Esther and Judith”, 61–75; A. Álvarez Valdés, “Ester y Judit”, 63–80. 109  Cf. N. Hacham, “3 Maccabees and Esther”, 765–785. 110  Cf. J. Grossman, “ ‘Dynamic Analogies’ ”, 394–414. 111  Cf. B.W. Jones, “Two Misconceptions”, 171–181. 112  Cf. Y.T. Radday “Esther with Humour”, 295–313. 113  Cf. F.B. Huey, “Irony as a Key”, 36–39. Also J. Derby, “The Funniest Word in the Bible”, 115–119; J.W. Whedbee, The Bible and the Comic Vision, 171–190. 114   K.M. Craig, Reading Esther: A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque. 115  A. Berlin, Esther, xxii. 116  A. Berlin, Esther, xviii: “Paradoxically, then, the canonization of a work sometimes serves to suppress its most plausible readings” (Halbertal as quoted by Berlin). 117  A. Berlin, Esther, xvi–xxii. 118  Cf. S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies in Esther”, 15–31, 16: “The ironies in Esther represent a tenable model for survival in the Diaspora and offer insight into how irony functions as both a narrative device and as an ethical value in the story”. cf. B.W. Jones, “Two Misconceptions”, 171.

The Book Of Esther In Context

33

From the beginning of the story, the author of Esther does not take the Persians seriously119 and presents the Persian court as highly dysfunctional.120 Further examples of irony are present in chapter 6121 and chapter 7, even to the point that in Esth 6:8 the text is so ambiguous that it is not clear who should wear the royal crown, whether the horse or he who rides on it. The death of Haman represents another fine example of irony because, when Haman is hung, then he is exalted high above everyone else (7: 10, cf. 3:1). On the other hand, Elsie R. Stern has recently challenged this view and proposed that the point of Esther was to criticise those who had remained in the land of exile. Through the use of satire in this comedy, the author would address the feelings of competition between the Jews who had remained in Palestine and those who lived closer to the heart of the Persian empire.122 In this view, the book of Esther would suppose a sympathetic audience who would agree with the satirical take on those who had stayed in the Diaspora.123 3.6 Rhetorical Devices The author of Esther is a master in using literary forms124 in order to enhance the comic-hyperbolic style of the tale. One of the finest examples in which the author shows his genius is that, in the midst of all the ironies, the reader is fully aware of what is happening whereas the characters are not.125 Another device that the author uses throughout the story is delay. For instance, there is an 11-month wait between the promulgation of the first decree and its enactment. Esther delays in making known her request (Esth 5:3.6; 7:3–4), whereas Mordecai’s reward is granted after a period which goes from his ‘good action’ (2:21–24) to the time his deed is remembered (6:2). Only thereafter he is honoured (8:2). With delay, the author creates suspense. The author makes use of doublets,126 repetition127 and exaggeration in order to impress on the mind of the reader/hearer a comical sense of grandiose. Hence, the narrative tends to be physically descriptive with minute description of furnishings, clothing and length of days (1:6–7). In repetition, however, 119  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 33. Cf C. Vialle, “L’ombre de la Reine Vashti”, 519–520. 120  J.-D. Macchi, “Les textes d’Esther”, 79–80. 121  A. Wénin “Pourquoi le lecteur rit-il d’Haman en Esther 6TM?”, 465–473. 122   E.R. Stern, “Esther and the Politics of Diaspora”, 31–32. 123   E.R. Stern, “Esther and the Politics of Diaspora”, 52–53. 124   A.K. Fountain, Literary and Empirical Readings; R. Gordis, “Studies”, 44. 125  A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 15. 126  E. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther”, 238–239. 127  A. Brenner, “Looking at Esther”.

34

CHAPTER 1

the author displays elegantly a series of synonyms making the reading smooth as in the case of “to destroy, slaughter and annihilate” (7:4; 8:11). Worthwhile mentioning is the use of an inclusio with the reference to the 127 provinces of the king at the beginning (Esth 1:1) and at the end of the book (Esth 9:30). There is also an allusion to Persia and Media (Esth 1:3.14.18.19; 10:2) as another example of this literary device.128 These few examples should show how rich this tale is and how its author made a conscious effort to produce an account both entertaining and carefully thought through. 4

Motifs and Themes129

Berg’s seminal work opened a door into the study of Esther through its themes and motifs.130 She isolated four dominating motifs in the story of Esther: banquets, kingship, obedience and disobedience as well as four main themes: power, loyalty to the Jewish community, inviolability of the Jewish people and reversal. Subsequent to Berg’s work, Timothy S. Laniak furthered this researched by focusing on the themes of shame and honour. Together with these themes and motifs, we shall assess the apparent absence of God from the MT Esther.

128   B.W. Jones, “The So-Called Appendix”, 36–37. 129  We will examine different themes and motifs of the book of Esther in the knowledge that the Meghillah cannot be reduced to a single one because as Beal puts it, the book of Esther “is richly complex with interconnections between scenes, relational dynamics, words, phrases, and narrative patterns. These interconnections must be allowed to stand in tension with one another. To claim that it is organized around any single motif, theme, or set of connections is to lose this rich and complex textual interplay within the narrative” (T.K. Beal, Esther, xiv). 130  S. Berg, The Book of Esther. Motifs are “situations, elements or ideas which imply specific contexts or type-scenes” where a theme is “the message or idea which the author conveyed by his use of the story’s motifs [. . .] the ‘themes’ of the Book of Esther refer to the central, dominant ideas which underlie the narrator’s use of motifs, and to which those motifs point” (S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 17).

The Book Of Esther In Context

35

4.1 Banquets Berg shows that feasting is the primary motif of the Meghillah131 which is structured by the different banquets.132 Most of the plot developments happen in the context of a banquet and so Haman’s evil plot is uncovered during a banquet at which he receives his punishment.133 Moreover, the celebration par excellence is the feast of Purim which gives meaning to all the other celebrations, making the institution of Purim not something alien to the book but integral to it.134 Berg points out that complementary to the motif of feasting is that of fasting (4:3.16; 9:31).135 A further interpretation of this motif is that the Meghillah’s insistence on banquets is a way of focusing on the earth and not having a transcendental perspective.136 4.2 Kingship Kingship is another motif which runs through the story.137 The root ‫( מלך‬to reign) appears more than 250 times in the book, relating to the king, the queen and the kingdom. The royal power is attributed to Ahasuerus and to Esther (4:14), who causes Mordecai to be exalted (8:1) and transfers to him Haman’s property (8:2). Thus Mordecai, invested with royal power, institutes Purim. Kingship, moreover, is not a sure institution in the story of Esther since the great king Ahasuerus is depicted as a weak man who cannot take a decision till he consults his aids and as one who gives his royal insignia, signet and robes, to others (3:10; 6:11; 8:2). The roots ‫ מלך‬and ‫( גדל‬to exalt) are set in parallel at the beginning of the story (1:4) thus they are used as synonymous. In this way, 131   C.A. Moore, “Esther Revisited again”, 179: “Berg has in my judgement, successfully demonstrated that feasting (and its auxiliary motif of fasting) is the primary motif of Esther and is found throughout the entire book”. 132  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 31–35. There is a total of 10 banquets in the book of Esther (Esth 1:2–4; 1:5–8; 1:9; 2:18; 3:15; 5:4–8; 7:1–10; 8:17; 9:17. 19; 9:18.). 133  C. Vialle, “L’ombre de la reine Vashti”, 524. Cf. with other biblical stories in which violence is dealt in the context of banquets (N.W. Duran, “Having Men for Dinner”). 134  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 47: “Purim’s place in the story becomes particularly apparent when we note the narrator’s use of a motif of feasts. Through this motif, he establishes a vital link between the events which lead to the institution of Purim and its annual observance”. 135  Cf. L.M. Day, Esther, 88: “The fasting, therefore, functions symbolically in the story as an act of resistance; such refraining from drink may even be seen as a form of nonviolent protest”. 136  A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 83. 137  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 59–72.

36

CHAPTER 1

when the root ‫ גדל‬refers to Haman (3:1) and Mordecai (9:4; 10:2–3) it seems as if some of Ahasuerus’ power has been transferred to them.138 Other than the actual root ‫מלך‬, there are other references to kings. Mordecai, as we have said earlier, is a descendent of king Saul. Thus the author of Esther surprises his readership because the leader of the community in exile is not a member of the Davidic dynasty but one who belongs to the family rejected by God. We can deduce therefore that the Saul traditions were well regarded by the time Esther was written and that the Davidic traditions were not unanimously held by the post-exilic community.139 4.3 Obedience/Disobedience The Persian empire is governed by laws and decrees that issue from the king and regulate all aspects of life. The word ‫( ָּדת‬decree, edict) appears in the book of Esther 20 times out of its 22 occurrences in the Bible.140 The law in the book of Esther is associated with the wishes of the king (3:9; 8:6) and cannot be abrogated (1:19; 8:8).141 The pairing of obedience/disobedience to the royal decrees and laws is a fundamental motif in the development of the plot142 since the disobedience of some characters brings the plot forward. Vashti’s disobedience of the king’s command (1:12) precipitates all the events that set in motion the story. By refusing to bow before Haman, Mordecai is disobeying a royal decree (3:2) and the action of the story is initiated. Esther’s additional disobedience, when she appears before the king without being called (5:1), furthers the story and brings about a positive consequence. Thus the disobedience of the Jewish characters brings good results whereas the disobedience of the pagans brings about death.143

138  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 71. 139  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 68–69; cf. F.J. Ruiz-Ortiz, “Cuando Dios esconde su rostro”, 227; Y. Berger, “Esther and Benjaminite Royalty”, 628–637; A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 53: “A story written in Hebrew with heroes modeled on Saul rather than David, with no loyalty to the city of Jerusalem other than a distance family memory, and set entirely in the Diaspora with no expectation of a return to Yehud—this was a story that was sure to enrage those who believed that leadership depended on blood and geography and that Jewish destiny depended on physical and genealogical separation”. Cf. A.-M. Wetter, “On her Account”, 126. 140  Deut 33:2; Ezra 8:36; Esth 1:8.13.15.19; 2:8.12; 3:8 (x2).14.15; 4:3.8.11.16; 8:13.14.17; 9:1.13.14. 141  Cf. A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 58–61. 142  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 72–82. 143  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 99.

The Book Of Esther In Context

37

Mordecai is a loyal and obedient servant of the king. He denounced the eunuchs who were plotting against the king’s life (2:21–23) and did not enter the court of the king so as not to contradict the Persian law (4:2). Esther, on the other hand, passes from being the obedient adopted daughter of Mordecai to dictating him what he has to do (4:16–17). From that point on, the focus of action shifts from Mordecai, as the instigator of all action, to Esther. Further, the Jews obey the decrees of Mordecai and Esther about the celebration of Purim,144 proving Haman wrong in his description of the Jews as disobedient citizens (3:8). 4.4 Power Power in the book of Esther is connected with kingship and is presented in the context of banquets.145 The first verses of the Meghillah (1:1–9) are a description of Ahasuerus’ power and wealth. As we have seen above, this power is transferred to others: first to Haman, then to Mordecai and at a later stage to the Jewish people, who inspire fear in the Persians (8:13) and are given authority to do whatever they want (9:5). The book of Esther has been described as a textbook of how to manipulate power for the good of the people.146 4.5 Loyalty to the Jewish Community Mordecai is described as a Jew who is in exile and is constantly described with the epithet ‘the Jew’. An epithet is always given in the scriptures to foreigners147 and thus it seems as if the author of Esther wanted to emphasise that Mordecai was an outsider in the court of Susa.148 When Mordecai speaks with Esther to plead on behalf of the people (4:12–15), she requests the Jews to fast for her (4:16),149 showing in this way the solidarity among all the Jews in Susa. A similar loyalty is found in the rest of the inhabitants of Susa, who are saddened by the decree against the Jews (3:15) and gladdened by its remission (8:15).150 In the case of Esther and Mordecai, their loyalty to those who belong to their ethnic group, does not preclude their fidelity to the king. Mordecai’s 144  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 81. 145  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 96–98. 146  D.J.A. Clines, “Reading Esther”, 45–46; J.-D. Macchi, “Denial, Deception, or Force”, 219–229. 147   F.W. Bush, Esther, 312: “[T]his is the only time in the whole OT that a native member of the community of Israel is named and identified by the gentilic. Normally a member of the community of Israel is identified by a patronymic”. 148   F.W. Bush, “The Book of Esther”, 43. 149  In other circumstances such fast is accompanied with prayer (1 Sam 7:6; 2 Sam 12:16), cf. A.-M. Wetter, “On her Account”, 104–106. 150  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 99–100.

38

CHAPTER 1

double loyalty attains for him the salvation of his people and the king’s trust. Similarly, Esther’s disobedience to the king’s decree because of loyalty to her people (Esth 5:1) brings about deliverance for the Jewish nation. This attitude contrasts with Haman’s, whose actions are prompted by his personal desire to profit and not by person loyalty to the ruler. 4.6 Inviolability of the Jewish Nation and Reversal In Berg’s view, subsidiary to the themes of power and loyalty, the book of Esther introduces the theme of inviolability of the Jewish nation,151 which is expressed clearly by Haman’s wife (6:13). This concept became clearer in the mind of the Jews during the exile, since up to that point Jerusalem was an invincible place because God lived there. However with the crisis of the exile the notion that God lives with his people wherever they are became clearer. This is the reason why God makes the Jews successful in all their undertakings.152 The Jewish nation is therefore inviolable because it is a chosen nation.153 The inviolability and survival of the Jewish nation in the book of Esther is closely linked to the peripeteian principle.154 The fortunes of the Jewish protagonists are reversed for their good whereas those of their enemies are changed for their shame. Comparison of how the different characters have their fortunes changed is underscored by the use of the same language.155 The theme of reversal is clearly enunciated in Esth 9:1 with the verb ‫ָה ַפְך‬ (to turn about) which sums up what has happened in the preceding chapters. Thus, those who read the Meghillah in subsequent generations know that the opposite can happen and that all hopeless situations can be reversed. 4.7 Shame and Honour Laniak divides the book of Esther into four different sections (Esth 1–2; Esth 3–5; Esth 6–7; Esth 8–10) and then describes how the themes and patterns of shame and honour are present in the story. Laniak also argues that this pattern of shame and honour is common to other biblical narratives such as Job, Nehemiah and David, among others. These stories depict an innocent person who suffers and is victim of an attack on his life. Only after divine intervention,

151  Cf. S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 103–106. 152  A. Berlin, Esther, xxii. 153  A. Meinhold, Esther, 101. 154  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 158–163; A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 58. 155  Bush provides a help table in which this linguistic relation is highlighted, cf. F.W. Bush, Esther, 324.

The Book Of Esther In Context

39

the fortunes of the innocent sufferer are reversed and that person becomes a ruler for the community.156 Esther and Mordecai go through the same model and, by the end of the story, become the leaders of the community, which has been shamed but is equally honoured in the persons of its representatives. According to Laniak, honour which was lost by the shame of the exile can be regained not only by returning to the land and rebuilding the temple, but also in the land of exile, as Esther shows. In this way, Esther is the book of the Diaspora157 which shows the centrality of the people.158 4.8 Absence of God Though God is not mentioned in the story of Esther,159 he is present in an anonymous manner.160 Different explanations have been given to the lack of any direct reference to God. When the rabbis161 look for the presence of Esther in the Torah, they find it in an interpretation based on Deut 31:18 “and I will surely hide my face (‫ )וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ַה ְס ֵּתר ַא ְס ִּתיר ָּפנַ י‬in that day on account of all the evil which they have done, because they have turned to other gods” in which the hiphil first person common yiqtol of the verb ‫( ָס ַתר‬to hide) is conjugated in reference to God. Hence, in this interpretation, the book of Esther is the story of divine hiding in history.162 A further reason why the name of God might not 156  Cf. T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 8–15. 157   T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 173–174; cf. Id., “Esther’s Volkcentrism”, 79. 158   T.S. Laniak, “Esther’s Volkcentrism”, 81. 159  D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 268: “The absence of the name of God from the book of Esther can hardly be accidental; but its absence is no sign of lack of interest in theological issues”. 160   C.M. Bechtel, Esther, 14; cf. A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 96–106; I. Kamili, “Fear of Annihilation”, 243–247. 161  The rabbis also found the divine name in the text of the Meghillah, F.J. Ruiz-Ortiz, “Cuando Dios esconde su rostro”, 217–218: “Los primeros en aventurar el nombre divino en el texto de Ester fueron los escribas y copistas del texto sagrado. En su búsqueda lograron encontrar el nombre divino en cuatro lugares del libro de Ester. Estos son 1,20; 5,4.13 y 7,7. En cada caso la combinación de las primeras letras o las últimas leídas según el orden de la lectura o en orden inverso dan los componentes del tetragramaton, Yhwh. En 1,20 la lectura de las primeras letras en orden inverso a la lectura componen el nombre divino (‫יִּתנּו‬ ְ ‫ל־הּנָ ִׁשים‬ ַ ‫ ) ִהיא וְ ָכ‬mientras que en 5,4 el tetragramaton se verifica en las primeras letras de cada palabra leidas en el orden de la lectura (‫)יָבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ָה ָמן ַהּיֹום‬. Los otros dos casos desvelan el nombre divino en la lectura de la letra final de cuatro palabras en orden inverso a la lectura (5,13 ‫ )וְ ָכל־זֶ ה ֵאינֶ ּנּו ׁשֹוֶ ה ִלי‬o en el orden de lectura (7,7 ‫י־כ ְל ָתה ֵא ָליו ָה ָר ָעה‬ ָ ‫( ”) ִּכ‬cf. L.A. Turner, “Desperately Seeking Yhwh”, 185–193). 162   T.K. Beal, Esther, xx–xxi.

40

CHAPTER 1

appear can be that the Meghillah is read in the festivity of Purim. The way this festival is celebrated brings people to drink in excess and, in a state of drunkenness, they might profane the divine name when reading the scroll.163 From a more theological point of view, several authors see the presence of God in the allusions, the high quantity of verbs in the passive voice and the coincidences which lead to the reversal of fortunes. In Bush’s view, God’s presence is recognised in the denouement of the narrative and the problem-based plot.164 Thus God is present as the guiding hand which leads all these coincidences and whose providence rules history, even though he does this in a hidden manner.165 According to many authors, the main allusion to God in the Meghillah is Esth 4:14, when Mordecai says to Esther “For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter (‫ִמ ָּמקֹום‬ ‫) ַא ֵחר‬, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” where the expression ‫“( ִמ ָּמקֹום ַא ֵחר‬from another place”) is thought to be a circumlocution for God.166 However, we agree with John M. Wiebe who has argued convincingly from a linguistic point of view that when Mordecai used this expression, his intention was to dare Esther to act.167 According to Berg and Loader,168 God’s action is hidden and veiled, whereas Clines maintains that God is unexpressed in this tale with the purposes of encouraging trust in the divine Providence and highlighting the personal

163   C.C. Torrey, “The Older Book of Esther”, 11; L.B. Paton, Esther 95–96. 164   F.W. Bush, Esther, 327–335. 165  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 189: “Este Dios escondido, oculto, innominado, está presente en toda la trama de Ester, como lo está en la vida misma”. 166   L.B. Paton, Esther, 95; C.C. Torrey, “The Older Book of Esther”, 10; S. Talmon, “ ‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther”, 428–429; G. Gerleman, Studien zu Esther, 21–22; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 152–154; J.-D. Macchi, “Les livres d’Esther”, 247; H. Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose, 13. 167   J.M. Wiebe, “Will Relief and Deliverance”, 413–415. Other authors who do not see a reference to God in this verse are H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 333; M.V. Fox, “The Religion of the Book of Esther”, 144; Id., The Redaction of the Books of Esther, 131; Id., Character and Ideology, 63; S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 178; Id., “After the Exile”, 117–118; L.M. Day, Three Faces of a Queen, 63; D. Blumenthal, “Where God is not”, C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 39; J.D. Macchi, “Dieu, la perse”, 65–69. 168  S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 178; S. Berg, “After the Exile”, 114–120; J.A. Loader, “Esther as a Novel” 418.

The Book Of Esther In Context

41

responsibility of the Jewish people.169 Salvation comes as a combination of God’s direction of events and human initiatives.170 In this way the story of Esther becomes the story of human courage and providential care of God.171 Even though reversal of the situation and coincidences do not necessarily point to divine causality, the Meghillah’s implied author and audience were people of faith172 who belonged to a religious context in which God should be taken as a premise. As we have already discussed, the book of Esther is somehow modelled on other biblical stories and is inserted in the canon of Scripture, in which God is present as a constituting element, so one could say that God is part of this story too.173 In this sense, David Firth exposes the intertextual connections between the Books of Samuel and the Meghillah, thus proposing a theological reading of the latter.174 Moreover, when a reader asks 169   T.S. Laniak, “Esther’s Volkcentrism”, 89: “If Yhwh is to be found in the book of Esther, he is to be found in the actions of its central character. In a moment of community crisis she is the most tangible evidence of the saving presence of God”. 170  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 154–158; Cf. A. Meinhold, Das Buch Esther, 99–101; S. Berg, The Book of Esther, 178–179; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 205; A. Pitschmann, “ ‘Gehört dazu nicht Phantasie?’ ”, 37–53. 171  Some authors have named this combination of these two systems of reasoning “dual causality”. In this way the biblical texts express that “the fact that most of the time the narration is devoted to people involved in activity does not detract from God’s status as the one responsible for what happens” (Y. Amit, “The Dual Causality Principle”, 391). 172  Cf. R. Anaya Luengo, “La teología del libro de Ester”, 42. The author speaks of an ‘implicit’ theology in the Masoretic text as opposed to the ‘explicit’ theology of the Greek additions to Esther. See also J.D. Macchi, “Dieu, la perse”, 72–73: “Le livre massorétique d’Esther utilise une technique littéraire qui, si elle ne mentionne pas explicitement l’action divine, engage cependant le lecteur à discerner derrière les événements et les actions humaines la volonté divine. Cette technique caractérise plusieurs récits décrivant la situation de Juifs vivant en terre étrangère. On la retrouve notamment dans le cycle de Joseph (Genèse 37–45) où l’interprétation par Joseph des événements survenus comme conséquence de la volonté divine n’a lieu que tout a la fin, en 45, 5–8. Cette technique littéraire est particulièrement astucieuse car elle met le lecteur dans une position analogue a celle d’un croyant qui, dans sa vie, interpréterait des événements—qui pourraient tout aussi bien être le fruit du hasard ou de la volonté des hommes—comme part d’un projet divin”. 173   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 238: “Meaning depends on context, and in the context of the canon, both Jewish and Christian, the Scroll is part of a larger testimony to God’s rule of history”. 174   D.G. Firth, “When Samuel met Esther”. Firth concludes that “The need to read Esther theologically is thus not simply a matter of faithfulness to its place in the canon. It is something required by the way the story is told, both through what it says and (more particularly in this case) through what it does not say” (28–29).

42

CHAPTER 1

questions about the presence of God, he or she does what the author intended him or her to do.175 5

Interpretative Currents176

The story of the delivery of the Jewish nation has been popular among the Jews to the point that Maimonides said that the scroll of Esther could be compared to the Torah.177 This popularity is also due to the link between the Meghillah and the feast of Purim which has been re-interpreted by Jews down the centuries following the various threats of annihilation posed to them.178 We shall evaluate some of the most frequent interpretations of the book of Esther. In this way we will have a sample of some of the ways in which the Meghillah has been understood in the course of history.179 5.1 Carnivalesque Reading As previously mentioned, one of the keys to understanding the Meghillah is humour, or more specifically irony and sarcasm.180 Craig was the first author to write a systematic study of Esther as a case of carnivalesque literature. He bases his research of Esther on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin and takes the celebration of carnival as the hermeneutical key to understanding Esther. He is 175   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 247. 176  For a summary of the reception history of the book of Esther, see J. Carruthers, Esther through the Centuries, 1–51. Carruthers covers all aspects of the reception of the story of Esther, not only in the works of commentators but also including art, literature or the ways in which the book has been used in the political circles. 177  M. Maimonides, Laws of the Scroll, 2:18: “All of the books of the Prophets and the Writings will be rendered irrelevant in the Messianic Era with the exception of the Scroll of Esther, which will continue and be fulfilled just as the five books of the Torah and like the laws of the Oral tradition which will never be rendered irrelevant. And even though all recollection of pain and trauma will eventually become irrelevant, the days of Purim will never cease to be relevant”. 178  R. Bauckham, The Bible in Politics, 118–130. For a comprehensive bibliography see E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 80–82.149.167. 179  C. Vialle, “La problématique du pouvoir”, 577: “Le livre d’Esther tm est ainsi un récit ouvert à une pluralité d’interprétations, ce qui, en définitive donne beaucoup de pouvoir au lecteur à qui il revient d’interpréter le récit et d’y comprendre qui est véritablement aux commandes dans le monde d’Esther et Mardochée”. 180  A. Berlin, Esther, xviii: “The comic aspects of the book are not incidental, merely to provide comic relief, they are the essence of the book”; cf. K.M. Craig, Reading Esther, 92–119.

The Book Of Esther In Context

43

justified in his choice since the Meghillah is read out at Purim, which is a carnival celebration. Moreover, following Bakhtin, Craig points out that at carnival time everything can be the object of parody, from the serious to the most banal subjects and that one of the most treated carnival subjects is death.181 Hence, he affirms that the violence and the large number of deaths in the latter chapters of Esther are to be interpreted from the point of view of carnival and as a parody.182 LaCocque develops Craig’s ideas and highlights that the book of Esther is a work which canonises laughter as a way of dealing with a crisis. Using Bakhtinian categories and comparing the situation of the Jewish people183 with what happened in communist Russia, LaCocque studies different aspects of the book of Esther. The key to understanding Esther is humour and hence all other themes and features such as exaggeration or violence need to be reassessed in this light.184 Purim gives the reader the hermeneutical key to comprehend this strange story which turns our view of society upside down. 5.2 Political Explanation The Jewish people have experienced many persecutions down the ages and in those moments some of its members have turned to Scripture in order to find meaning for or a solution to the particular crisis. The repeated experience of discrimination has given Jews the certainty that anti-Semitism is a valid hermeneutical key to understanding the book of Esther.185 From this perspective studies have focused, for example, on the reasons why Mordecai ordered Esther not to reveal her identity (cf. 2:10.20). This advice should be understood against the background of attitudes towards the Jews which might have included a widespread anti-Semitism in the Persian empire.186 This is the thesis of Joseph Fleishman who deals with the question of how Haman managed to persuade Ahasuerus to sign the decree against the Jews. 181   K.M. Craig, Reading Esther, 121. 182  Cf. K.M. Craig, Reading Esther, 121–136. On page 135, the author writes: “My point is that one reads the final chapters, and indeed the entire book, quite differently if viewing the plot through the lens of the literary carnivalesque”. 183  According to LaCocque, the book of Esther was written as an answer to the crisis which arose from the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 35). 184  Cf. A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 11. 95–97. 185  Cf. J. Carruthers, Esther, 31–32; M.-T. Wacker, “Tödliche Gewalt” 627–633. 186   L.B. Paton, Commentary, 175: “Wherever they have lived, the Jews have made themselves unpopular by their pride and exclusive habits”; Fox points out that the anti-Semitism is contained in the expression “enemies of the Jews” (9:1), cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 32.

44

CHAPTER 1

According to Fleishman, Haman develops his argument in five stages187 and convinces the king to sign the edict of pogrom,188 banking on the inherent anti-Semitism of the Persian people. This view, however, contrast with the text, which recounts that the inhabitants of Susa had a great appreciation for the Jews (cf. 3:15; 8:15). We agree with other authors who argue that Haman’s actions and the hiding of Esther’s origin are not based a historical hatred of the Jews but a literary device to aid the plot.189 One should also remember Haman uses anti-Semitism as an instrument to achieve revenge and to assert his ego.190 God is hidden in Esther as it was at the time of the Shoah and when he “is absent or chooses not to intervene, humans must act to counter evil”.191 The teaching of the book of Esther is that one can address the solution to a problem within an unjust political system, without trying to change it. In the case of Esther, opposition to the Jews is cancelled when their enemies are dealt with and the unjust system which lies underneath the Persian empire is accepted and used for the protection of the Jews.192 This action is given as an example to follow because one can profit from an unjust regime in order to attain the survival of the Jewish people.193 5.3 Feminist Interpretations Much has been written on Esther from a feminist point of view194 and the essays edited by Athalya Brenner should be considered as a reference work.195 The feminist exegetes point out that the book is set up in a totalitarian state 187  Cf. J. Fleishman, “Why did Ahasuerus?”, 51–56. 188  J. Fleishman, “Why did Ahasuerus?”, 56: “Haman prevailed upon the king to consent to his plan to annihilate the Jews of Persian because of his successful portrayal of the Jews as a peculiar and dangerous element. Haman’s words fell on an ear primed by the widespread antimony toward the Jews, which was, seemingly, a result of their singular and anomalous lifestyle”. 189  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 251; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 61. 190   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 181. 191   M.A. Sweeney, “Reconceiving Paradigms”, 159. 192  R. Bauckham, The Bible in Politics, 128. 193  World War II and the figure of Hitler have also been interpreted as another example of persecution by a descendant of Amalek and the victory of Purim, cf. J. Carruthers, “Esther and Hitler”, 515–526. 194  E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 110–116. Also C.B. Anderson, “Ruth and Esther as Models”, 145–152; M.A. Jackson, Comedy and Feminist; S. Niditch, “Interpreting Esther”, 255–273. 195  A. Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, Susana; Id., ed., Ruth and Esther.

The Book Of Esther In Context

45

ruled by masculine power196 but a state which is at the same time weak because it is based on fear.197 Many of the feminist interpretations of Esther focus on the role of Vashti in chapter 1198 and how it affects the rest of the book.199 On the other hand, the feminist interpreters are not kind to Esther and describe her as a role model of a patriarchal society which extols submissiveness to male domination. Esther progresses in as much as she accepts that she is a sexual object. By playing the part in the ‘sexual politics’, Esther is able to save her people, nonetheless she does not achieve complete independence despite developing her character and independence in the course of the story. Even after it was accepted, the Meghillah was appropriated by male society to the point that Esther is soon forgotten and only Mordecai is remembered (cf. 2 Macc 15:36).200 However, one should consider that when one compares the biblical writings with their contemporary Greek works, there is a positive view of the role of women within the biblical accounts.201 Hence, Fox, in his excursus on the image of woman in the book of Esther,202 gives a very positive in his outlook. He underlines that the Meghillah’s ironic criticism of Persian society is not done from a feminist point of view but from a Jewish angle and that the criticism is aimed at the silliness of Persian court life and at an extreme form of sexual politics.203 White Crawford suggests that Esther becomes a model for the Diaspora Jew because she has survived several crises and has stood up to those who were powerful.204 In this way, both White Crawford and Fox set the

196  J. Berman, “ ‘Hadassah Bat Ahigail’ ”, 648: “The process by which young virgins are conscripted for the king situates Esther in a milieu that has been characterized as patriarchal in the extreme”. Cf. C.B. Anderson, “Ruth and Esther as Models”, 147–152. 197  K. Butting, “Esther”, 242. 198   L.L. Bronner, “Esther Revisited”, 190: “While rabbinic tradition was almost consistently derogatory in its depictions of Vashti, modern feminists have been highly sympathetic toward her plight. Vashti’s rebellion has made her a new role model for the contemporary woman”. Cf. C. Walsh, “Women on the Edge”, 138–142. 199   T.K. Beal, “Tracing Esther’s Beginnings”, 101–107; Id., The Book of Hiding, 54–59. 112–114; “Vashti will survive her own end in the narrative. She will haunt the rest of the story. The story of Esther and Mordecai never shakes her memory”, (T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 29). 200  D.J.A. Clines, “Reading Esther”, 44; cf K. Butting, “Esther”, 248; J. Jobling – A. Roughley, “The Rite to Write”, 318–333. 201  D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 90. 202   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 205–211. 203   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 209–210; cf. L.R. Klein, “Honor and Shame”, 155. 174–175. 204  S. White Crawford, “Esther: a Feminine Model”, 173.

46

CHAPTER 1

book of Esther in its context, the Diaspora and the limits that such a situation imposed on the characters of the book. 6

Reception History205

Reception history206 is a hermeneutical approach that moves the manner we read and understand texts from a two-way to a three-way dialogue; namely, passing from the relationship between the text and the reader to the addition of a third element: the manner in which any given account has been interpreted through the ages.207 Originally employed in classical studies,208 it has been subsequently applied to biblical literature. 6.1 Reception History of the Book of Esther209 Whilst there is a considerable amount of work on the artistic interpretations of several biblical stories,210 only a few reception history theorists have ventured to apply this method to the Meghillah. Among their works we draw attention to Elisabetta Limardo Daturi’s monograph on the interpretations of Esther in literature and images,211 Carmen Yebra Rovira’s analysis of some

205  Among those who gave me the necessary information for this section I would like to thank: Dr. Francisco Javier Perea Siller (University of Cordoba, Spain); Prof. John Sawyer (Durham University), Prof. Ruth Fine (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Mr. Alberto Gallego and Dr. Gabrile Finaldi (Museo del Prado, Madrid), Prof. Julio Alonso (University of Valencia), Prof. Ignacio Arellano (University of Navarra), and Prof. Gregorio del Olmo Lete (University of Barcelona). 206  Different strands of study come under the definition of Reception History. The two basic disciplines are Rezeptionsgeschichte (Reception History) which deals with how a given biblical story has been interpreted by plastic arts and Wirkungsgeschichte (the re-working of tradition) studies how the given work of art influences the viewer, cf. M. O’Kane, “Interpreting the Bible”, 390–391. According to Parris, both approaches are encompassed in the definition of Reception History, cf. D.P. Parris, Reception Theory, 117–118. 207   D.P. Parris, Reading the Bible, xii–xiv. 208  Cf. C. Martindale – R.F. Thomas, eds, Classics and the Uses of Reception. Also the Classical Receptions Journal published by Oxford University Press. 209   F.J. Ruiz-Ortiz, “ ‘Their Fame Continue to Grow’ ”, 319–342. 210  Cf. The collected essays in the following volumes, J.C. Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted; T. Verdon, ed., L’arte e la bibbia; J.C. Exum – E. Nutu, eds., Between Text and Canvas; M. O’Kane, Painting the Text; A.C. Swindell, Reworking the Bible; just to mention a few. 211  E. Limardo Daturi, Représentations d’Esther; especially pages 7–29 in which the author gives the status questionis and lists studies and monographs dedicated to this topic.

The Book Of Esther In Context

47

paintings of Esther212 and Jo Carruthers’ commentary within the Blackwell Bible Commentary series.213 Moreover, as part of collective works, Judith S. Neulander, Anthony C. Swindell and Deborah W. Rooke have dedicated chapters to the reception of the Meghillah in popular piety,214 literature215 and music216 respectively. In this section, we will review how the Meghillah has been perceived in the different arts. 6.1.1 Visual Art217 The Meghillah was first interpreted visually by the illustrators of the Jewish scrolls218 and the Christian scribes illuminating codices.219 It is worth noting the frescos of the Dura Europos synagogue (Syria) dating from 3rd century CE which are preserved in the Damascus museum and represent the Triumph of Mordecai and the feast of Purim.220 Pursuing a didactic aim, Christians incorporated biblical cycles in the stained glass windows of medieval cathedrals. These reproduced the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers and hence coupled Esther with the Virgin Mary and passages of the story of Esther with the life of Christ. These compositions were taken up at the Renaissance even though some of the cycles of paintings were substituted by individual representations interpreting the contemporary political, social and religious situation.221 212  C. Yebra Rovira, “La figura de Ester”, 53–60. 213  J. Carruthers, Esther Through the Centuries. 214  Both Christian and Jewish piety, cf. J.S. Neulander, “The Ecumenical Esther”, 176–199. 215  Cf. A.C. Swindell, Reworking the Bible, 160–175. 216  Cf. D.W. Rooke, Handel’s Israelite Oratorio Libretti, 1–31; Ib., “From London to Amsterdam”, 459–473. 217  Cf. O.Z. Soltes, “Esther (Book and Person)”, 42–48. 218  Cf. M. Metzger, “The John Rylands Megillah”, 149–182; O.Z. Soltes, “Images and the Book of Esther”, 159–175. It includes pictures of the frescoes of the Dura Europos synagogue. 219  For example the Bible of Alba (1433), cf. E. Limardo Daturi, Représentations d’Esther; 152–153. For other pictures, see J. Carruthers, Esther, 63.70.248. 220  A. Luzzatto, “L’aniconismo ebraico”, 98: “[. . .] le pareti [della sinagoga di Dura Europos] sono abbondantemente ricoperte di disegni con ricche raffigurazioni umane. Queste figure sono una autentica narrazione animata di storia sacra. Potremmo addirittura parlare di una scrittura per immagini, che alle volte sconfina nella esegetica, quasi fosse una traduzione commentata”. Cf. R. Hachlili, “The Dura-Europos Synagogue Wall Paintings”, 403–420, in p 420: “The wall paintings of the Dura synagogue are thus the earliest confirmation that folk tales based on biblical stories with legendary additions found artistic expression in painted narrative scenes”. 221  For example Veronese’s cycle in Venice (cf. M. Kahr, “The Meaning”, 235–247. In 1511–1513 while the protestant crisis was hitting Europe, Michelangelo painted the death Haman alongside with the stories of Bronze serpent, David and Goliath and Judith and Holofernes

48

CHAPTER 1

We notice that other than Haman’s punishment depicted in the Sistine Chapel and some illuminations of different Scrolls, the inherent violence of the Meghillah is not taken up at all by any of the artists dealing with our story. The extreme cruelty of chapter 9 is not recounted in any artistic work we have consulted, neither the death of the eunuchs nor the punishment of Haman and his children. We conclude that for Western sensibility this feature of Esther is rather disturbing and so is ignored. The question why this came to be remains, above all when other biblical accounts marked by violence such as the Death of Holofernes are widely attested. We argue that Western society, under the influence of Rhabanus Maurus, interpreted Esther allegorically. Esther is a parallel of Mary whilst the story of Esther should be put alongside salvation history. In this view the extreme violence of Esther is out of place. 6.1.2 Literature222 There are several lists of poems, plays, autos de fe and novels written on the basis of the Esther story, dating from 16th century to our own day.223 Some of the works are archetypal because of their unprecedented innovations and should be added to the classical Jewish Purimshpil.224 Other than the eponymous texts bearing the name of one or several of the characters of the Meghillah, some scholars mention other titles inspired by our biblical story.225 Given the limitations of space we have chosen to focus only on Lope de Vega’s La Hermosa Esther because his work is well known among the theatrical interpreters of the Meghillah in modern times. Felix Lope de Vega y Carpio on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel. In all four stories there is a divine intervention to save God’s people through the hand of two men and two women, two of whom are young, the other two are old (cf. J. Dupu, “Esther”, 609–610). In the Sistine chapel Haman is no longer hanged but nailed to a cross in the shape of St Andrew’s cross and is clearly set in contrast with Christ as an image of the anti-hero who is visibly in pain. In the background Michelangelo painted the insomnia of Ahasuerus and Esther’s second banquet. 222  Cf. A. Swindell, “Esther (Book and Person)”, 39–42. 223  These listings consist of more than 100 titles in over 12 languages. Cf. F. Doglio, “Catalogo”, 221.229–230.242; G. del Olmo Lete, La biblia hebrea, 161–164; E. Limardo Daturi, Représentations d’Esther, 83–101; J. Carruthers, Esther, 13–21. 224  Cf. G. del Olmo Lete, La biblia hebrea, 27–28. Purimshpil is a “monologue or group performances given at the traditional festive family meal held on the festival of Purim”, C. Shmeruk, “Purim-Shpil”, 744. 225  For example, Cervantes’ La gran sultana (cf. R. Fine, “Los rostros de Ester”, 251–258) or other more recent titles, such as Dickens’ Bleak House (1852) or Rebecca Kohn’s The Gilded Chamber (2004); for a short summary of contemporary novels inspired by the book of Esther, see A.C. Swindell, Reworking the Bible, 163–175.

The Book Of Esther In Context

49

(1562–1635) worked mainly at the court of Philip II in Madrid. In 1610 he produced La Tragicomedia de la hermosa Ester which was played in Madrid and Seville later that year and finally published 11 years later.226 La hermosa Ester became Lope de Vega’s first biblical story to follow the pattern of a comedia.227 The Spanish author is, by and large, faithful to the text of the Vulgate and the changes made to the biblical plot can be traced to the Talmud, Josephus, Lope’s own knowledge of the Scriptures or his own inspirations.228 The main alteration to the biblical plot is that after the deliverance of the Israelites, the Hebrews burst into praise and the play finishes in this manner. There is neither an account of the execution of Haman’s ten children nor of the revenge taken on the Persians; and so, “La hermosa Ester is a drama of deliverance and not revenge”229 in which pride is conquered and humility rewarded.230 From a theological point of view this comedia displays two important characteristics. First, Esther is presented as a new Mary231 and second Esther’s people are not called Jews but Hebrews. The latter has a theological foundation since Christians are the heirs of the Hebrew people while the denomination “Jew” has a negative connotation linked with the Exile and God’s punishment.232 6.1.3 Music233 A recent study on Handel’s Israelite Oratori devotes its first chapter to the composer’s first Israelite Oratorio based on the story of Esther and Racine’s interpretation of the biblical drama.234 226  A. González, “Mecanismos dramáticos de Lope de Vega”, 377. 227  E. Glaser, “Lope de Vega’s ‘La Hermosa Ester’ ”, 110; A.D.H. Fishlock, “Lope de Vega’s La hermosa Ester”, 81–97. The Meghillah had been the subject of different autos de fe in the 16th century (R. Fine, “Los rostros de Ester”, 240). 228  E. Glaser, “Lope de Vega’s ‘La Hermosa Ester’ ”, 125: “For Lope, fidelity to the source never means renouncing his creative freedom as the construction of the scenes and the development of their dramatic potentialities show”. 229  E. Glaser, “Lope de Vega’s ‘La Hermosa Ester’ ”, 129. 230  F. Lope de Vega y Carpio, La hermosa Ester 120: “[Ahasuerus says] La casa y huertas de Amán, y sus tesoros, entrego a Mardoqueo y Ester, porque demos fin con esto a la soberbia de Amán y humildad de Mardoqueo”. With these words Lope finishes his tragicomedia, punishing pride, anger and envy and rewarding humility, generosity and kindness (cf. A. González, “Mecanismos dramáticos de Lope de Vega”, 384). 231  E. Glaser, “Lope de Vega’s ‘La Hermosa Ester’ ”, 131–134. 232  R. Fine, “Los rostros de Ester”, 242. 233  Cf. J. Carruthers – H. Leneman, “Esther (Book and Person)”, 48–50. 234  Jean Racine (1639–1699) was a French play-writer who was commissioned to write a play in order to nourish the piety and morals among the young pupils of St Cyr’s girls’ school. In 1688 he produced the biblical play of Esther following the Greek tragedy model, that

50

CHAPTER 1

Georg Friedrich Handel (1685–1759) was born in Germany but later transferred to England where he worked from 1712. While being employed at the court of George I, Handel started the composition of oratories, of which Esther was the first example. It was based on Racine’s Esther and went through various different transformations from its first appearance in 1718 to its second edition in 1732. In considering the libretto, one should keep in mind that Racine’s work was translated into English by Thomas Brereton in 1715, a translation which influenced the musical opus. The 1718 libretto has a three-act structure. The setting is exilic rather than diasporic and in this manner it develops trust in God because the appointment of Esther as queen means the salvation of the Jewish people. There is a stress on the religious conflict between the Persians and the Jews but at the same time the opus undermines violence and omits the celebration of Purim. Esther’s beauty is downplayed while giving emphasis to her spiritual qualities as a servant of God and a righteous queen. Fourteen years later a new, longer libretto written by Samuel Humpheys was set to music by Handel. There are some variants to the original work such as the pre-eminence of the chorus’ praise of God and the inclusion of two coronation anthems previously composed by Handel. Some other changes bring this libretto closer to the biblical account. Handel’s libretto was one of his most popular oratorios being performed more than fifty times while he was alive. In each of its performances, the author made slight changes to improve the final result. One of the most significant adaptations of Handel’s work was produced by rabbi Jacob Saraval (1708–1782) who translated the English original into Hebrew. He did not render literally the libretto but made some changes which added some Jewish elements to the work. The main changes are in three areas: first he minimise the status of earthly kings, second he lessens the exilic context while exalting the diasporic and third he adds biblical references. In this way, Saraval made

is, three acts rather than five with the extensive use of choruses (cf. P. Degott, “De Racine à Haendel”, 37–38). The main changes in Racine’s interpretation of the Meghillah are Esther’s religiosity and the exilic location of the play which concluded with the Israelites returning to Palestine. For example, as the play finishes, the chorus sings: “Dieu fait triompher l’innocence: Chantons, célébrons sa puissance [. . .] Que son nom soit béni, que son nom soit chanté! Que l’on célèbre ses ouvrages au delà des temps et des âges, au delà de l’éternité!” (Esther, ll 1200–1201. 1283–1286). Cf. A. Schellenberg, “Esther”, 275–293; D.W. Rooke, Handel’s Israelite Oratorio Libretti, 1–29.

The Book Of Esther In Context

51

the libretto more appealing to his kin by adapting it to the socio-political context of the Jews in eighteenth century Europe.235 7 Conclusion At the end of our examination of the different issues that have been raised by the studies on Esther, we are ready to embark on our own research. By now, it seems obvious to us that the story we will study is a complex text which is the result of much reflection and thought. The author uses material and ideas both from the biblical and the Greek literature in order to create a story which will answer the challenge of the Diaspora. The main hermeneutical key of the Meghillah is humour as expressed and celebrated at Purim. Hence the story of Esther and the yearly occurrence of Purim have become a timeless reminder of the Jewish community’s resilience to the point that the Meghillah has been re-appropriated whenever another Haman has risen in history. Part and parcel of this story is violence which nonetheless has been played down in the reception of the text to the point of almost blotting it out. As we study the Meghillah we will discover that violence in the book of Esther is not something one can do away with. 235  Cf. D.W. Rooke, “From London to Amsterdam”, 461–473.

CHAPTER 2

Vocabulary of Violence Bethink thee how much more grievous are the consequences of our anger and vexation at such actions than are the acts themselves which arouse that anger and vexation1

⸪ Experience attests that violence always occurs in conjunction with various mental processes. One of the main feelings bringing an individual to belligerent behaviour is anger that, in its turn, is the result of complex psychological procedures.2 Moreover any violent action is not an end in itself but produces a series of outcomes, either in the individual or in society at large.3 Our study of the vocabulary of violence4 present in the Book of Esther will follow a twofold pattern. In the Meghillah all aggressive actions are heralded by hostile feelings which will be studied before delving into an explanation of aggressive conduct. Additionally, feelings and actions do not happen in a vacuum but have a human subject. After reviewing the vocabulary of violence in the Meghillah, we have identified that hostile actions and feelings leading to such behaviour are always ascribed to a range of characters who share the common description of “the enemy”. Consequently we have chosen to begin this survey of the vocabulary of violence with the concept of the enemy. This work will be done first in the biblical corpus and then the conclusions will be applied to the text of Esther. In this way, we will gain a greater appreciation of the subtleties hidden in the Meghillah. 1  Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, The Communings with Himself, 309. 2  In their study on anger, Daniel J. Canary and his colleagues propose eight ‘sites of anger provocation’: 1. personal identity or public image which is under attack; 2. reaction to an aggression or a threat; 3. frustration when people’s plans are interrupted; 4. perception that one is unfairly treated; 5. people’s incompetence; 6. relationship threat which refers to jealousyevoking situations; 7. predisposition due to learned experiences or the abuse of alcohol and 8. generalised learned responses (cf. D.J. Canary et al., “The Experience”, 192–197). 3  Cf. D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 43–46; cf. M.R. Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness, 59. 4  For some methodological keys, see M. Alieni, “Metodologia”, 31–45.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_004

Vocabulary Of Violence

1

53

Subjects of Violent Actions

Violence is executed by different individuals or groups in the book of Esther. On the one hand the Jews are the protagonists of the most violent actions recounted (9:1–11) whereas the Persians are presented as those who planned aggression but did not succeed in accomplishing their intent. The author of our book differentiated between the roles of the Jews and the Persians and, while giving no moral judgement on the actions of the former, he describes the latter in a negative light. Three terms describe the Persians as enemies in the book of Esther: the participle of the verbs ‫ צרר‬and ‫ ׂשנא‬and the substantive ‫אֹויב‬.5 These three words are employed in parallel elsewhere in the Scriptures, to the point of being treated as synonyms.6 Having studied them as they appear in the biblical corpus, we will survey how the author of Esther appropriates the existing tradition and develops it in a particular way. 1.1 ‫“ צ ֵֹרר‬attacker, enemy” Hebrew present two different roots ‫צרר‬. First ‫ צרר‬is related to “narrow, restraint, anxiety” whereas the second meaning implies “to treat with hostility, to attack”.7 For our purposes, we are only interested in the second root in as much as it is employed to describe an enemy. 1.1.1 ‫ צ ֵֹרר‬in the Scriptures When referring to enemies, the occurrences of ‫ צ ֵֹרר‬can be classified into three categories, namely: the enemies of the people, God’s foes8 and the adversaries of an individual. First of all, the enemies of Israel are the surrounding nations who wage war against them. Their main actions are instigating battle against the Israelites when they entered the Promised Land (cf. Josh 5:13), destroying them and the Temple (Isa 63:18) and preventing their settlement in Canaan after the Exile (Ezra 4:1). The Lord defends Israel from her enemies (Num 24:8;

5  E. Lipiński, “‫”ׂשנא‬, 830. 6  Ps 106:10–11: “So he saved them from the hand of the foe (‫) ִמּיַ ד ׂשֹונֵ א‬, and delivered them from the power of the enemy (‫) ִמּיַ ד אֹויֵב‬. And the waters covered their adversaries (‫ּסּו־מיִ ם‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ַכ‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ;) ָצ ֵר‬not one of them was left”. 7  HALOT, III, 1052–1053. 8  In different ANE sources (Hittite, Egyptian, Assyrian) the enemy is described in a religious way and in reference to the gods, see K. Lawson Younger, Jr., Ancient Conquest Account, 67–69, 128–130, 177–185.

54

CHAPTER 2

Deut 33:7) to the point that Israel’s foes become the Lord’s enemies (Exod 23:22; cf. Deut 32:41; Isa 59:18; Nah 1:2).9 Besides these occurrences, in the biblical corpus several individuals have adversaries: Abraham (Gen 14:20), David (2 Sam 24:13) or the psalmist (Pss 3:2; 27:12; 119:139). The most detailed description of the processes of animosity is the story of Saul-David (1 Sam 18:10ff; 19:9–17) that highlights jealousy as one of the hidden reasons for personal enmity. 1.1.2 ‫ צ ֵֹרר‬in the Book of Esther In the book of Esther the root ‫ צרר‬refers exclusively to Haman and becomes his nickname as ‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫“ צ ֵֹרר ַהּי‬enemy of the Jews” (3:10; 8:1; 9:10.24; cf. ‫ צר‬in 7:6). This epithet is understood in the light of Haman’s personal hostility towards Mordecai which extends to an antagonism towards all the Jews. Haman’s words are reproduced in the edict of pogrom against them (3:8–9) adding an ethical dimension to the concept of enemy/oppressor.10 ‫ צ ֵֹרר‬acquires some sense of ruthlessness and irrationality since the Jews should be “destroyed, killed and annihilated” (3:12) just because they live separately and their laws are different from those of the Empire (3:8). Anyone who reads the Meghillah in this way would think that Haman’s behaviour is totally illogical unless a further consideration is made. The author of Esther sets ‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫ צ ֵֹרר ַהּי‬in parallel with another epithet, ‫“ ָה ֲאגָ גִ י‬the Agagite” (3:10; 9:10.24).11 As demonstrated largely in the past, this nickname is an intertextual reference to both the fight between Israel and the Amalekites in the desert (Exod 17:8–16) and to the episode of Saul and Agag (1 Sam 15).12 It seems that the author wants the reader to have the image of the Israel’s traditional enemy in mind whenever Haman is mentioned.13

9   On the other hand and under different circumstances, God becomes an enemy to the Israelites (Lam 2:4) or even sends adversaries against them as a punishment (Amos 3:11). 10  J. Asurmendi, “La construction d’Haman”, 423–424. 11   F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 384; J.-D. Macchi, “Haman l’orgueilleux”, 201–203. 12  W. McKane, “A Note”, 260–261; E. Haag, “Das Esterbuch”, 19–41; D.G. Firth, “When Samuel Met Esther”, 22–27. Also all major commentaries, see L.B. Paton, Esther, 194–195; C.A. Moore, Esther, 35; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 67; J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 263; H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 90–91. 13  Amalek plays a play as a paradigm of enmity in the books of the Bible. “Die Amalekiter spielen eine Rolle in Exodus, in Numeri, in Deuteronomium. Dann wieder im Richterbuch und in Samuel. Das Josuabuch selbst jedoch hat mit ihnen gar nicht zu tun. So spielen sie hier eine zwar paradigmatische, aber weiter thematisch unwichtige Rolle” (E. Noort, “Joshua und Amalek”, 170).

Vocabulary Of Violence

55

Therefore it comes as no surprise that Haman develops from being Mor­ decai’s foe to the enemy of all his people by desiring their utter extermination. It is noticeable that, unlike his prototypes, Haman does not take any violent action against the Jews; on the contrary, he merely orchestrates their annihilation while showing no interest in anyone else’s feelings (cf. 3:15b). Once his plan is discovered at the queen’s banquet (7:6), Haman experiences the very death he had planned for Mordecai. All his plotting against the Jews makes him a truly wicked foe, who even after his death, continues to be the enemy of the Jews par excellence (cf. Haman’s new nickname ‫הּודים‬ ֔ ִ ְ‫ל־הּי‬ ַ ‫צ ֵֹר ֙ר ָּכ‬, “the enemy of all the Jews”, 9:24). In this way the word ‫ צ ֵֹרר‬in the Meghillah has a double meaning. On the one hand Haman is described as the enemy of an individual, of the whole people and therefore of God; on the other hand, Haman’s life is set as an example for those who might plan to destroy the Jews: they should know that they would not succeed in their intent and that they risk being ensnared in the trap they lay. 1.2 ‫שנֵא‬ ֹ “one who hates, enemy” The verb ‫ ׂשנא‬appears many times in the Hebrew scriptures with different nuances ranging from “to hate” to “to divorce”.14 When ‫ ׂשנא‬is conjugated as a qal or niphal participle, it expresses the idea of an enemy.15 For the purposes of our study, we will survey only the occurrences of the latter meaning of this root. 1.2.1 ‫ ש ֹנֵ א‬in the Scriptures The verb ‫ ׂשנא‬has different subjects and objects. The wicked hates the just (Ps 34:22), some people hate God (Deut 5:9; 2 Chr 19:2) and also God hates humans (Deut 12:31; Isa 61:8; Amos 5:21). The direct object of ‫ ׂשנא‬can be a person (Gen 37:5; Isa 66:5) or a wrong behaviour such as bribery (Exod 18:21; Prov 15:27) or robbery (Isa 61:8). The qal and niphal participles of ‫ ׂשנא‬are used in the Scripture to refer to the enemies of Israel and Jerusalem generically (Exod 23:4–5; 2 Sam 22:18; Pss 18:41; 21:9; 106:10) and to the king’s opponents particularly (2 Sam 22:18; 2 Chr 1:11). God’s foes are also described by this verbal form (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9; Ps 81:16) and God’s help is implored against the adversaries (Gen 24:60; Num 10:35; 14  Some recent studies demonstrate that ‫ ׂש ֹנֵ א‬is not exclusively a technical term for divorce in Sir 7:26, instead it refers to the more generic “breaking of a covenant” and perhaps to one of the stages of the breaking of a marital bond; cf. N. Calduch-Benages, “Cut her away from your Flesh”, 84–89. 15   HALOT, III, 1338–1340.

56

CHAPTER 2

Ps 68:1). Though there is a desire to exterminate one’s enemies, the Torah prescribes care towards their property (Exod 23:5) and forbids hatred against one’s kinsman (Lev 19:17). In several contexts ‫ ׂשנא‬is the opposite of ‫( אהב‬Gen 37:24; 2 Sam 13:15; Mic 3:2)16 and falls in the semantic field of election (Mal 1:2).17 Also, ‫אהב‬ describes interpersonal relationships, being family ties (Gen 22:2; Ru 4:15), political alliances (1 Kgs 5:15; Lam 1:2), the rapport between masters and slaves (Exod 21:15; Deut 15:16) or the bond of friendship, such as David and Jonathan’s (1 Sam 20:17; 2 Sam 1:26).18 With the participle masculine active form of ‫אהב‬, biblical authors denote someone who likes or cares for somebody else (Ps 88:19; Jer 20:4)19 and express the concept of friend. Thus, as an enemy stands in opposition to a friend, the participles of ‫ ׂשנא‬and ‫ אהב‬have an antagonistic relation in biblical literature. Both terms put side by side shed a light on each other and should be considered together in order to understand their particular meaning. 1.2.2 ‫ ש ֹנֵ א‬in the Book of Esther In the book of Esther the qal active participle of ‫ ׂשנא‬occurs three times (9:1.5.16) and designates in a generic way those who want to destroy the Jews.20 They are always called “their enemies” (‫ )א ֵֹיב ֶיהם‬as a description of those Persians who harbour hostility and desires for confrontation against the Jews. In the Meghillah the opponents of the Jewish people obey completely the royal laws and can be found in the citadel of Susa (9:6) and in the provinces (9:16). In their turn, they are the recipients of the most descriptive acts of violence in the whole book (9:5). Nonetheless, we cannot speak of a complete hatred of the Jews from the inhabitants of the Empire because there are some people who not only rejoice when the decree of self-defence is promulgated but rather support the Jews (8:15.17).21 16  E. Jenni, “‫”אהב‬, 63. For a study of the uses of ‫אהב‬, see D. Winton Thomas, “The Root ‫”אהב‬, 57–64. 17  In the Book of Esther ‫ אהב‬is a sign of Esther’s election by the King (Esth 2:17). 18  Cf. P.K. Tull, “Jonathan’s Gift of Friendship”, 133–137. 19  There is no agreement whether the underlying meaning of ‫ אהב‬is emotional (“like, delight in”) or includes the idea of a beneficial care. For the former view, see E. Jenni, “‫”אהב‬, 62, whereas for the latter, see G. Wallis, “‫”אהב‬, 112–115. 20  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 157: “Si le récit mentionne la présence d’ennemis des juifs, éliminés en grand nombre au cours du chapitre 9, ceux-ci restent fort impersonnels et n’apparaissent qu’à cet endroit du récit”. 21  The Persian support of the Jews is expressed by the participle ‫ ִמ ְתיַ ֲה ִדים‬, which was interpreted by the LXX as going through the process of circumcision (πολλοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν

Vocabulary Of Violence

57

Paradoxically, another enemy of the Jews is the group of Haman’s friends. They appear twice with Zeresh, Haman’s wife, and provide advice to the Agagite (5:10.14; 6:13). When they come into view for the first time, their suggestion is double and consists of doing away with Mordecai by constructing a gallows and asking the king to have Mordecai hung (5:14). In their second appearance, Haman’s friends are called ‫( ֲח ָכ ָמיו‬6:13), that is, his closest collaborators and they should be understood as having the same characteristics as the ‫ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬who advised the king previously (1:13).22 Within their repertoire of knowledge they might have been familiar with the prophecies of Israel which foretold that the Israelites would prosper over their rivals (cf. Num 24:15–20).23 Thus they become the mouthpiece of divine wisdom and, even though they are pagans, they prophesy Haman’s end.24 Moreover his friends become the mastermind behind the scheme to destroy Mordecai, a plan which in its turn will bring Haman to the death he had planned for his Jewish adversary. In this way, the role of friendship in the Meghillah is turned upside down and the friends become foes placing Haman on the path to certain death. 1.3 ‫“ איב‬enemy” The root ‫ איב‬appears only once as a finite verb in the Hebrew Bible (Exod 23:22). In all its other occurrences, the nominalised participle appears to designate the political and military enemies of Israel. ‫ איב‬is present in all parts of the biblical corpus and its different genres.

περιετέμοντο “many of the Gentiles were circumcised”) but should be understood as supporting the Jews, even identifying with them (“to become a Jew”, cf. J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 343; “to declare oneself to be a Jew”, cf. Clines, IV, 115. Cf. A. Winitzer, “The Reversal of Fortune”, 174, n 9; R. Kossmann, Die Esthernovelle, 306–310; “to pose as a Jew” cf. HALOT, 393; A.-M. Wetter, “On her Account”, 137).This idea of coming close to the Jewish people appears also in 9:27 in which the addressees of Mordecai’s letter establishing the Purim festival include those who were joined to the Jews (‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ל־הּנִ ְלוִ ים ֲע ֵל‬ ַ ‫) ָּכ‬. The verb ‫ לוה‬is used elsewhere in the Scripture to denote the proselytes (Isa 56:3.6; Zech 2:15); cf. J.D. Macchi, “Lettres de fête et réécriture”, 55 and also note 9. 22  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 235: “[L]os letrados son conocedores de los tiempos [. . .] están al tanto—son sabios—de los sucesos y acontecimientos pasados, de manera que puedan sacar y dar lecciones, aconsejar qué es lo que en un momento determinado se debe o no se debe hacer”. 23   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 98–99. 24   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 79–80; also S. Goldman, Narrative and Ethical, 20.

58

CHAPTER 2

‫ איב‬in the Scriptures 1.3.1 The enemy (‫ )איב‬may denote a personal foe (1 Sam 18:29; 1 Kgs 21:20) or any of the nations opposing Israel such as the Moabites (Judg 3:28), Ammonites (Judg 11:36) or the Philistines (1 Sam 4:3). ‫ איב‬can be used also for all the enemies of Israel in general (Judg 2:18) or for God in a paradoxical way (Isa 63:10; cf. Jer 30:14; Lam 2:4.5) but it is never used for the Israelites.25 Enemies are subject to vengeance (Josh 13:10; 1 Sam 14:24; Isa 1:24) and, according to some prophets Israel will not be under their dominion forever (Jer 31:16; Ezek 39:27). From the theological biblical perspective the authors consider Israel’s rivals as God’s punishment because of the Israelites’ disobedience (cf. Deut 1:42; 1 Kgs 8:33; Jer 17:4). Notwithstanding this interpretation, Yhwh is also the deliverer of Israel (1 Sam 12:10; 2 Sam 22:1; 2 Kgs 17:39). He makes Israel’s enemies scatter (Num 10:35) and promises the Israelites relief (‫ )נוח‬from their foes (Deut 12:10; Josh 23:1; 2 Sam 7:1; cf. Josh 21:44; 1 Kgs 5:18).

1.3.2 ‫ איב‬in the Book of Esther In the Book of Esther ‫ איב‬is the general term indicating all those who are hostile towards the Jews. As we have seen above, ‫ ׂשנא‬stands for the Persians who fight against the Jewish people whereas ‫ צרר‬is used to describe Haman. Both terms are used in conjunction with ‫( איב‬7:6; 9:1.5.16), which could be considered the “meeting point” of the descriptions of enmity in the Meghillah. For example, when Esther unmasks Haman’s plot, she calls him “‫” ִאיׁש ַצר וְ אֹויֵב‬ (a foe and enemy!, 7:6), making ‫ אֹויֵב‬in this phrase the link between Haman and the people who oppose the Jews (cf. 9:1.5.16). The enemies’ fortunes are changed when their expectations of gaining mastery over the Jews are not realised. Thus the enemies pass from being the subjects of an intention to becoming the objects of an action (9:1.5.16.22). The action in the first instance enunciated by the verb ‫“ נקם‬to take revenge” (Esth 8:13) is later specified in chapter 9 with the verb ‫“ נכה‬to smite” (9:5) and the expression ‫“ נוח מן‬to rest from [their enemies]” (9:16.22).26 Moreover, the 25  H. Ringgren, “‫”איב‬, 231. A.C. Leder, “Hearing Esther after Joshua”, 271: “Although not described as God’s enemy, Israel’s disobedience results in its suffering the fate of the nations (Lev 18, 24–28; 20, 22–26); rest will be revoked”. 26  In 9:16 “‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫נֹוח ֵמא ֵֹיְב‬ ַ ְ‫ ”ו‬creates a textual problem. Most versions attest this reading, nonetheless its contextual position has been queried because it seems to refer to an illogical sequence of events, namely ‫נֹוח‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬between ‫ ועמד‬and ‫והרג‬. GAT and Vulgate do not attest ‫נֹוח‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ neither is it present in the similar text of 8:11–12. Some emendations have been advanced (cf. BHS proposal: ‫)וְ נִ קֹום‬. Both Rudolph (“Textkritisches”, 90) and Driver (“Problem”, 237) have assumed a loss of ‫ מ‬by haplography and have proposed ‫ ונִ חֹום‬with the sense of “and avenged themselves”. Nonetheless recent studies maintain that the reading “‫נֹוח‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬

Vocabulary Of Violence

59

instances of this expression in Esther are the only examples in the Hebrew Bible in which God is not the subject of the expression ‫נוח מן‬. We conclude that with the expression ‫ נוח מן‬the author of the Meghillah expresses that God is behind the victory over the enemies of the Jews.27 1.4 Summary After a study of the vocabulary of enmity in the book of Esther, we can conclude that: a. b. c.

d. e.

2

None of the terms for “enemy” is applied to the Jews. There is a different terminology for the collective number of the enemies of the Jews (‫ )ׂשנֵ א‬and for the adversary par excellence, Haman (‫)צ ֵֹרר‬. The author describes differently the Persians who commit actions (‫)ׂשנֵ א‬ from the way he refers to Haman who plans them (‫)צ ֵֹרר‬. In this way, the enemies are always the object of actions and never their subjects. The enemies are nonetheless subjects of plans and schemes. The enemy needs to be eliminated. In the Bible ‫ צ ֵֹרר‬and ‫ ׂשנֵ א‬express hostility in a general way because the enemy is rarely identified. On the other hand, in the Meghillah the enemies are clearly identified.28 Feelings Leading to Violence

The stage preceding violence is usually an emotion of discontent leading to an action against a person. We aim at illustrating the examples of such feelings provided by the Meghillah. It is obvious that reactions such as anger, envy or hatred are provoked by a previous event, and thus, where possible, we identify or formulate a hypothesis about what that preceding incident might have been. ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ” ֵמא ֵֹיְב‬should be kept as another expression for being victorious. The mention of the gathering of the Jews is followed by the expression ‫נֹוח‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬indicating the direct result of the getting together. Therefore, the sequence should be understood logically and not chronologically. Cf. BHQ XVIII, 148*. 27   A.C. Leder, “Hearing Esther after Joshua”, 274: “Esther 3,8 also has the king as subject [of the verb ‫]נוח‬, not the Jews as elsewhere in Esther. This shift of subject comports with Esther’s emphasis on human responsibility rather than the divine provision characteristic of Joshua; it also contributes to Esther’s understanding of God’s veiled presence”. 28  Other examples are Lam 2:4 (Yhwh is Israel’s ‫ )צרר‬and Ezek 16:27 (the daughters of the Philistines are called Israel’s ‫)ׂשנאֹות‬.

60

CHAPTER 2

2.1 ‫“ קצף‬to be angry; anger” Anger has a place of honour among the emotions described in the Book of Esther to the point that ‫ קצף‬and its cognates become the guiding principles in the Meghillah.29 In order to gain a greater grasp of the significance of this feeling, ‫ קצף‬will be studied in the first instance and subsequently a survey will be carried out on other words belonging to the semantic field of anger.30 2.1.1 Processes of Anger In the Hebrew Bible anger is an emotion resulting from a previous process. As a rule of thumb, “[t]he sentiment of anger arises when someone or something interferes with the deity’s plans or with someone’s plans or with the subject’s attainment of previously set goals”.31 Even though the biblical authors attribute wrath more often to God than to humans,32 we have chosen to examine mainly the instances of fury ascribed to humans so as to enlighten our later discussion. 2.1.1.1 Human Anger When a human is the subject of ‫קצף‬, anger is the result of an adversity provoked by another human.33 For example, Pharaoh is enraged with two of his servants who had wronged him (Gen 40:1–2); Moses is indignant with the people because they disobeyed the divine command (Exod 16:20; Num 31:14)34 and the official of Jerusalem is angry with Jeremiah because of his ministry (Jer 37:15–16). Anger arises also from a disappointment such as the one

29  Cf. E. Segal, “Human Anger”, 248–250. 30  We adopt as ours, Deena Grant’s definition of anger as “an experience of displeasure over disregarded or abused authority that, in a predictable set of contexts, precipitates punitive—primarily lethal—acts of violence. Such acts are aimed at reasserting authority over a compromised or threatened domain of control” (D.E. Grant, “Human Anger”, 342). She also studies some of the terms describing human and divine anger, cf. D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 21–39. 31  E. van Wolde, “Sentiments”, 8. 32  According to Baloian, out of the 714 times in which vocabulary of anger appears in the Bible, 518 occurrences are attributed to God compared to the 196 referred to humans, cf. B.E. Baloian, Anger in the Old Testament, 5. 33  In Isa 8:21 ‫ קצף‬is conjugated in hithpael and appears as an exception. The wondering in the desert makes the people of Israel fall into a rage bringing them to express their discomfort by cursing God and their king. “It is likely that the verb here is an estimativedeclarative reflexive, whereby subjects can feign or pretend that they have particular qualities they do not have” (M.R. Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness, 199). 34  Cf. D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 69–72.

Vocabulary Of Violence

61

experienced by the man of God with Joash who did not dare to ask for God’s help (2 Kgs 13:19).35 As an emotion, fury moves its subject into action,36 for instance, one may speak (Num 31:14–20) or conversely he or she might be left speechless (Exod 16:20). Other reactions involve rejecting a person (1 Sam 29:1–11; Esth 1:19); walking away from a situation (2 Kgs 5:11) or punishing the guilty party (Gen 40:1–3). Such a reaction might result, in certain instances, in that person’s death (Esth 7:10). The dynamic of anger presupposes that it can be placated. There are several circumstances which bring a furious person to tranquillity, such as receiving the counsel of someone who makes him or her reflect on what has happened (2 Kgs 5:13–14) or removing the cause of anger (Esth 1:19–2:1). An outburst of rage can be calmed by correcting the situation which had provoked it. For instance, Moses rebukes the Israelites for not fulfilling the cherem. After ordering them to put it into practice (Num 31:13–20), his wrath subsided once they obeyed his command. In other instances however there is no description of the consequences or solution for an outburst of anger (Exod 16:20; Lev 10:16–20). 2.1.1.2 Divine Anger37 The object of divine wrath is often the community of Israel or certain members of it (2 Chr 32:25–26). Because God’s anger is caused by idolatry (Deut 9:19; 2 Chr 24:18; 29:8; cf. Zech 1:2) or disobedience to a divine command (Josh 22:20), its main purpose is to reinstate divine sovereignty.38 Anger is also addressed to the foreign nations (Isa 34:2; Jer 50:13; Zech 1:15) and is provoked by their leaders (2 Kgs 3:27) because a person’s offense can incite fury against a group (cf. Lev 10:6; Num 18:5; Josh 22:10–20). One of the characteristics of God’s anger is its irrepressibility. Once it is given a free rein, it is not controlled (cf. Num 16:21). The main consequence of divine anger against Israel is the exile inflicted by Babylon under the divine command (Isa 47:6; cf. 54:9). However, even when the sinner continues in his or her evil ways, God behaves with compassion (Isa 57:16–18). 35   D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 33: “The focus of qsp lies more on the breaching of social bonds than on the experience of its subjects (as is the focus of k‘s) or the consequences to its objects (as is the focus of hmh)”. 36  E. van Wolde, “Sentiments”, 13: “Prototypically or culturally most representative is the view that anger is a sentiment that takes control of a person”. 37  For a study of divine anger, see B.E. Baloian, Anger in the Old Testament, 65–147; D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 73–166. 38  Cf. D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 76–88.

62

CHAPTER 2

‫ קצף‬in the Scriptures 2.1.2 ‫ קצף‬is found 24 times as a verb and can have as its subject both God (Lev 10:6; Deut 1:34; Qoh 5:5; Isa 47:6; Zech 1:2), and a person (Lev 10:16; Num 31:14; Deut 9:7; 1 Sam 29:4; Jer 37:15; Zech 8:14). The direct object of ‫ קצף‬is often human, either an individual or the community. Alternatively, God is the grammatical object of ‫ קצף‬only when the verb is conjugated in the hiphil (Deut 9:7.8.22; Ps 106:32; Zech 8:14). In those instances the subject is always the community of Israel which at the time of the exodus provoked God to anger.39 As a noun ‫ קצף‬appears 28 times,40 referring twice to human feelings of frustration or ill-humour (Esth 1:18; Qoh 5:16) while all the other occurrences are associated with God. ‫ קצף‬is used as a synonym of the plague or a divine punishment which falls on the people of Israel after different acts of rebellion (Num 17:11;41 18:5) and describes God’s reaction to idolatry (2 Chr 24:18; 29:8).

2.1.3 ‫ קצף‬in the Book of Esther Wrath is the most important feeling in the Book of Esther and, as we shall see later, becomes a crucial concept in the development of the story. The root ‫קצף‬ appears only three times in the Meghillah having the king and the eunuchs as its subjects.42 Both Ahasuerus and queen Vashti are the object of ‫קצף‬. When ‫ קצף‬is ascribed to the king, his fury is abated after his orders to depose Vashti are accomplished and she is removed from the scene (2:1). The eunuchs, instead, are overtaken by their rage which burns within them and eventually leads to their execution. On a different note, the king’s advisers predict that if nothing is done about queen Vashti’s affair, the women in the kingdom would follow her example and the kingdom would be full of anger and contempt (1:18).43 39  Cf. D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 153–154. 40  In Hos 10:7 the meaning of ‫ קצף‬is obscure. Following the ancient versions, HALOT gives two possible meanings (“snapped-off twig” or “foam”) and concludes that either meaning be accepted, cf. III, 1125. 41  “And Moses said to Aaron, ‘Take your censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation, and make atonement for them; for wrath (‫ )קצף‬has gone forth from the Lord, the plague (‫ )נגף‬has begun’ ”. 42  Van Wolde’s affirmation that the nouns and verbs of anger are never attributed to servants or children but only to kings and princes is proved inaccurate by the book of Esther (cf. E. van Wolde, “Sentiments”, 16). This is also Deena Grant’s thesis whereby human anger is tied up with issues of authority. When it is threatened, anger is used as a mechanism to rebalance power lost (D.E. Grant, “Human Anger”, 316). The example of the eunuch, however, is an exception to this view. 43  Esth 1:18 ‫ ִּבּזָ יֹון וָ ָק ֶצף‬: “contempt will come from the wives’, wrath from the husbands’ ”, D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 282.

Vocabulary Of Violence

63

This fear makes the king pass a law reaffirming that honour should be given to all husbands throughout the Persian Empire (1:20–22) and thus the prospective indignation is deflected when honour is re-instated. Whereas the object of ‫ קצף‬is usually understood,44 it is not always expressed in the text by the usual preposition ‫על‬. King Ahasuerus becomes outraged when Vashti refuses to come to his presence after she is called (1:12).45 The king’s reaction is described in similar terms to the eunuchs’ anger against the monarch (2:21–23). They are angry but no reason is given for their discontentment.46 In Ahasuerus’ account (1:12), however, the portrayed anger is the result of an offense against the king’s prestige47 and the verb ‫ קצף‬appears in an absolute manner without an object. Similarly we could infer that the eunuchs in 2:21–23 were wounded in their honour and, enraged with the king, they plotted an attempt on his life. When the king and Haman are irritated, the offense is felt more grievously because the humiliation is done in a public space, a banquet or the king’s gate, and is always performed by an inferior. An exception to this rule might be found in the story of the eunuchs since no reason for their fury is given and the recipient of their plot is the king. However, we have postulated that the event leading them to be infuriated with the monarch was the result of an attack on their dignity by royal authority. In their pride, they did not accept the scolding given to them.

44  According to Kruger, there must always be an object for the action of anger, P.A. Kruger, “A Cognitive Interpretation”, 182. 45  Referring to the king’s reaction to Vashti’s refusal to come to his presence, Laniak writes: “The western reader needs to appreciate the fact that the king’s most valued possession was jeopardized. In honor-based societies, shaming constitutes a grave offense which regularly produces the most extreme responses. In contexts of status anxiety one is likely to find just this kind of anger”, T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 56. 46  Segal, using the rabbinical sources, explains the eunuchs’ anger as divine intervention. God provoked Bigthan and Teresh to anger in order to prepare a situation for Mordecai to be exalted at the expense of Haman in chapter 6, cf. E. Segal, “Human Anger”, 251. 47  A third example of the same grammatical construction (‫ קצף‬without preposition) appears in Naaman’s reaction to Elisha who ordered the Syrian through a servant to bathe seven times in the river Jordan (2 Kgs 5:10–12). Expecting to be treated differently, Naaman interprets the prophet’s answer as an offense to his rank and hence becomes incensed. In Naaman’s and Ahasuerus’ examples, the verb ‫ קצף‬is used in an absolute form and refers to an offense to someone’s honour.

64

CHAPTER 2

2.1.4 Summary The information provided by the study of ‫ קצף‬and its cognate terms48 leads us to the following conclusions: a.

b.

c. d. e. f.

Anger is an interpersonal reaction, that is, it is evoked by a person and can result in a violent deed against him or her. In some cases the hostile behaviour against the antagonist leads to his or her murder or might bring about the self-destruction of the angry person. Even though anger is reflected above all in the face it has other physical manifestations, such as wasting away of eyes or heavy breathing. Anger can also be somatised leading to loss of appetite or sleep, signs which could be deemed to be depression.49 Burning is the most commonly used image to describe the processes of anger, highlighting the concept of utter destruction. Wrath is also associated with agitation, shaking and noise. Anger dwells in the innermost being of humans, their heart or bosom, but is also associated with the nose. Anger is proper to fools while the wise are able to control it. A female is never the subject of a verb or expression of anger.50

2.2 ‫“ חֵ ָמה‬anger” Rather than the consequences of anger, ‫ ֵח ָמה‬highlights the experience of being angry.51 In different instances it summarises the complex processes accompanying the angry person. These dynamics, both in the general biblical context and in the particular examples of Esther will be the focus of this section. 2.2.1 ‫ ֵח ָמה‬in the Scriptures Usually translated as “anger, rage, wrath” ‫ ֵח ָמה‬most probably derives from the root ‫“ יחם‬to be hot”.52 In some instances ‫ ֵח ָמה‬has the meaning of “fiery wine” (Job 36:16–18; Isa 27:4; Hos 7:5; Hab 2:15)53 and “venom” (Deut 32:24.33; Ps 58:5; Job 6:4). Following the imagery of “being hot”, ‫ ֵח ָמה‬is associated with verbs 48  According to Johnson, the synonyms of ‫ קצף‬are ‫אנף‬/‫אף‬, ‫זעם‬, ‫זעף‬, ‫כעס‬, ‫ ֶע ְב ָרה‬, ‫רגז‬, ‫רוח‬ (E. Johnson, “‫”אנף‬, 380–381). According to Reiterer, the antonym of ‫ קצף‬is ‫( טוב‬F.V. Reiterer, “‫”קצף‬, 97). 49   P.A. Kruger, “A Cognitive Interpretation”, 183. 50  Cf. E. van Wolde, “Sentiments”, 12–13. 51   D.E. Grant, “The Difference”, 418. 52   K.D. Schunck, “‫”חמה‬, 1032. 53  Cf. G.R. Driver, “On ḥemah”, 133–135.

Vocabulary Of Violence

65

such as ‫“ בער‬burning” (Jer 7:20); ‫“ יצת‬being kindled” (2 Kgs 22:13.17) and ‫נתך‬ “pour out like a fire” (Nah 1:6). Biblical authors frequently predicate ‫ ֵח ָמה‬to God even though they use it for humans too. As a human passion, it appears 27 times in the Hebrew Bible (including two instances of ‫ ֵח ָמא‬in Aramaic, Dan 3:19; 11:44).54 ‫ ֵח ָמה‬occurs mainly in the wisdom books relating always to the angry person who is to be avoided (Prov 22:24–25). When attributed to a human, there are several causes inciting anger in a person. For instance, suffering an injustice (Gen 27:41–45) or an offense to one’s honour (2 Kgs 5:10–12) rouses indignation in an individual. Jealousy can also provoke anger (Prov 27:4) which additionally appears at the realisation of a wrong committed (2 Sam 11:20). Once ‫ ֵח ָמה‬has been prompted, it can initiate psychological or physical processes. It brings fear to its subject (Isa 51:13) and makes him or her scoff at the other people around him or her (Job 36:18). Rage also leads to revenge (Dan 11:44) and stirs strife (Prov 15:18; 29:22). Physically, anger changes the face of its victim (Dan 3:19) and induces that character to punish someone else (Job 19:28–29), commit evil (Ps 37:8) or perpetrate destruction (Prov 27:4; Dan 11:44) even to the point of putting people to death (Prov 16:14). Anger can be appeased by the angry person. This is why wisdom tradition frequently exhorts people to control their rage (cf. Ps 37:8). In other cases ‫ֵח ָמה‬ is induced by the enduring memory of an event, setting forgetfulness as the only solution to manage one’s temper (cf. Gen 27:44–45).55 Moreover, other people can help in dealing with fury and so a good word spoken to the angry person might calm him or her (Prov 15:1; 2 Kgs 5:13) and even a bribe can also assist in reaching peacefulness (Prov 21:14). 2.2.2 ‫ ֵח ָמה‬in the Book of Esther When describing the king and Haman’s state of mind, ‫ ֵח ָמה‬points out the lasting consequences of preceding actions. Haman is filled with anger (3:5; 5:9)

54  Deena Grant counts 25 occurrences of ‫ ֵח ָמה‬as a human feeling (D.E. Grant, “The Difference”, 418 n 2). In our reckoning we exclude Jer 6:11 because it refers to Yhwh’s anger filling the prophet (cf. HALOT 326) and Dan 8:6 since it describes the actions of the ram, image of the “king of the South”. According to us, the primary reference in these two instances is not a person but Yhwh and the ram. 55   D.E. Grant, “The Difference”, 420.

66

CHAPTER 2

whilst fury burns within the king (1:12; cf. 7:10).56 As an inner feeling, it leaves Ahasuerus but remains with Haman till his end. The author of the Meghillah characterises the monarch through his bouts of anger as someone overtaken by his passions and, up to a point, not responsible for his actions. The king takes decisions in his rage resulting in his appeasement.57 These choices are the deposition of Vashti and the hanging of Haman. In both instances calm is acquired through the advice of one of the king’s attendants, Memuchan in the first case and Harbonah in the second. In this way the author seems to take responsibility away from Ahasuerus because he has taken decisions in a moment of indignation while following someone else’s advice. On the other hand, Haman’s anger does not subside during the story. We could postulate that rage is the main motivation for all his actions beginning with the plan to exterminate all the Jews (3:6).58 After the decree of their destruction is promulgated, Haman disappears from the scene. It seems as if his problems were solved till he meets Mordecai who once more declines to pay him homage (5:9). Even though Haman is drunk, he is able to control himself (‫ )וַ ּיִ ְת ַא ַּפק ָה ָמן‬and request advice from his wife and friends (5:10). His anger is now directed against a person and, in his fury, he arranges for the building of the gallows (5:14). An enraged Haman even risks his life by going into the presence of the king without being called (cf. 4:11). One can only imagine that during his visit to the king, Haman is further exasperated when Ahasuerus makes him honour Mordecai (6:10). Even though Zeresh and his friends anticipate a foreseeable end, Haman does not change his mind and keeps to his original plan. By going to the queen’s party (7:1), he hopes to take revenge on Mordecai but he is condemned to death instead. Stirred by anger and drink, Haman’s actions bring him to his end and paradoxically make the king’s anger cease. Therefore there are certain similarities between the ways Ahasuerus and Haman act under the influence of anger. Their behaviour is presented as a warning about the dangers of rage residing in one’s being. If anger is not controlled, it can eventually lead to the utter destruction of its victim.

56  The body is described as a container of anger which would be like a fluid. In this metaphor, when the intensity of anger escalates, the liquid increases to the point of producing steam. If the pressure is too high, the person explodes whereas when anger is controlled the pressure returns to normal. Cf. P.A. Kruger, “A Cognitive Interpretation”, 185–189. 57   D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 64. 58  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 101.

Vocabulary Of Violence

3

67

Violent Acts

The threat of capital punishment hangs over the Meghillah. It pursues Mordecai and the Jews but befalls their persecutors. By illustrating the human violent actions, the author of the Book of Esther portrays the fear assailing different groups and paints a surprising picture for the reader due to the final effects of such acts. We will describe the actions taken by the characters in this story so as to discover the final situation resulted from these actions. 3.1 ‫ תלה‬/ ‫“ תלא‬to hang” Among the different forms of execution available in the Ancient Near East, hanging or impalement was one of the cruellest punishments. According to Herodotus, after the fall of Babylon, “Darius also had about three thousand of the most prominent men impaled on stakes”.59 We will survey how this sort of punishment is treated in the Scriptures and the reasons given for death by hanging. 3.1.1 ‫ תלה‬/ ‫ תלא‬in the Scriptures The verb ‫תלה‬, “to hang”, appears 28 times in the Hebrew Bible whereas ‫ תלא‬is found only in 3 occasions.60 ‫ תלה‬is always a transitive verb and its complement is either an object (Job 26:7; Cant 4:4; Ps 137:2; Isa 22:24; Ezek 15:3) or a person (Gen 40:19; Deut 21:22; Josh 10:26; 2 Sam 21:12). The place where the person/ object is hung is expressed mostly by the preposition ‫ על‬61 or occasionally by ‫ב‬ (2 Sam 18:10; Ezek 27:10).62 Reading through all the texts in which a person is the object of ‫תלה‬, it is obvious that this verb is used as a description of a punishment inflicted on an enemy.63 However we should make a distinction between those texts referring to the practice of hanging by the Israelites (Deut 21:22.23; Josh 8:29; 10:26;

59  Herodotus, The Histories, 3:159. For a survey of other Middle Eastern text, see J.G. Cook, Crucifixion, 312–314. 60   ‫ תלא‬is a by-form of ‫ ;תלה‬cf. HALOT, IV, 1736; cf. GK 75rr. 61  In the expression ‫ל־עץ‬ ֵ ‫( ַע‬upon the tree/gallows), ‫ ֵעץ‬most probably refers to a pole or stake erected specifically for the hanging. 62  For a detailed study of suspension in the Old Testament as a form of execution and further dishonouring see D.W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, 97–177; G. Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, 209–236; C.A. Evans, “Hanging and Crucifixion”, 481–484. 63  The account of Absalom’s death is an exception (2 Sam 18:10 “Absalom hanging in an oak”, ‫ת־א ְב ָׁשֹלם ָּתלּוי ָּב ֵא ָלה‬ ַ ‫ ) ֶא‬because hanging in this case does not refer to an enemy.

68

CHAPTER 2

2 Sam 4:12; 21:12) and those reporting the hanging as carried out in other nations, such as Egypt (Gen 40:19.22; 41:13) or Persia (Esth 2:23; 5:14; 6:4; 7:9.10; 8:7; 9:13.14.25).64 Execution in ancient Israel took the form of stoning (Lev 20:27; 24:14.16.23; Num 15:35–36; Deut 13:10–11; 22:21.24; Josh 7:25), burning alive (Gen 38:24–26; Lev 20:14; 21:9) or shooting with arrows (Exod 19:13).65 After execution, the corpses were always buried (Josh 10:26) because of the Israelite belief that only if the body was interred could the soul of the deceased find rest preventing the departed from haunting the living. Before burial, however, the remains of the enemies might be left hanging for a time as a further manner of dishonouring them (Deut 21:22–23; Josh 8:29).66 On the other hand, this procedure stands in sharp contrast with the practice of the Egyptians (Gen 40:19), of the Philistines (1 Sam 31:8–13) or of the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:9–14) who left the cadavers exposed and did not always bury them.67 The biblical account describes the details of hanging in Egypt. We are told that while Joseph is imprisoned in Egypt, he interprets the dreams of Pharaoh’s butler and his chief baker (Gen 40:1–23) who were in jail with him because they had offended Pharaoh (Gen 40:1). The interpretation comes true and, while the butler is restored to his former post, the baker is executed by hanging on the stake (Gen 40:22; cf. 41:13). Joseph describes one of the most humiliating aspects of death by hanging, namely the birds eating the flesh of the condemned (Gen 40:19). This was an ultimate way of desecrating a person by not allowing him or her to be buried. 3.1.2 ‫ תלה‬/ ‫ תלא‬in the Book of Esther The Book of Esther attests to hanging as a way of punishment in Persia. Statistically the Meghillah has the highest density of the verb ‫ תלה‬among the books of the Bible (nine times). All the references to hanging point to the 64  F. Bille, “La peine de mort”, 120: “[l]a pendaison était un usage des peuples étrangers qui étaient en contact avec Israël; le peuple juif connaissait donc cette forme de mise à mort, mais cela ne signifie pas nécessairement qu’il la pratiquait”. Impalement and hanging was the fate reserved for the worst enemies in Babylon, cf. S. Dalley, Esther’s Revenge, 179–180. 65  R. Westbrook, “Punishments and Crimes”, 555; F. Bille, “La peine de mort”, 107–122. 66   HALOT, IV, 1738. M.J. Mulder, “‫תלא‬/‫”תלה‬, 659. G. Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, 233: “When ‫ תלה‬is combined with ‫ עץ‬it denotes some kind of post-mortem suspension, if it is possible to say anything about the status of the suspension victim”. 67   T.K. Beal, Esther, 112: “Execution is not so much concerned with death but with the publication of death, including a public claim of responsibility for that death. In this sense it is possible to publicly execute someone who has already been killed. The dead can be executed”.

Vocabulary Of Violence

69

punishment carried out for an act of rebellion or treason:68 the two eunuchs who plotted against the life of the king (2:21–23); Mordecai’s disobedience to the royal edict (5:14) and Haman’s attempted rape of the queen at her palace (7:9–10). A different case, though, is the account of the hanging of Haman’s ten children after their death (9:12–14.25) which serves as a public humiliation of his whole family.69 This chastisement is also pronounced as a deterrent for those who wanted to fight against the Jews because such action would be considered as treason against the crown.70 A further open question is whether ‫ תלה‬refers simply to hanging or could be taken as impalement. Impalement was performed in Persia as a way of punishing enemies by bringing on them the ultimate shame after they had been tortured.71 Further, the Hebrew Bible only records one instance of impalement as a way of penalising in Mesopotamia.72 Since ‫“ זקף‬to raise, to lift up (upon the timber erected)” is not used in the Meghillah, we argue that ‫ תלה‬means “hanging”.73 Both the eunuchs and Haman are sentenced to death and no other way of killing is described. So they must have died at the stake and their bodies were subsequently exposed for public shame.

68  J. Grossman, Esther, 135. 69  In this way, the story of Esther fulfils the commandment given to Israel of both remembering and blotting out the memory of Amalek (cf. A. Berlin, Esther, xxxviii). 70  J. Grossman, Esther, 193. 71  Classical sources record several accounts of criminals being impaled in the presence of Darius after suffering torture, cf. Herodotus, The Histories, 3:125.159; 7:238; 9:79; P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 135–136; S. Dalley, Esther’s Revenge, 179–180. 72  Ezra 6:11: “Also I make a decree that if any one alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of his house, and he shall be impaled upon it (‫)ּוזְ ִקיף יִ ְת ְמ ֵ ֣חא ֲע ֹ֑ל ִהי‬, and his house shall be made a dunghill”. 73  The confusion might spring from the way the different versions treat the verb ‫תלה‬. The Targum on Esth 9:14 uses the root ‫ זקף‬whereas the LXX translates ‫ תלה‬as σταυρόω in 7:9. Likewise Josephus applies the verb σταυρόω for his account of the officials’ rebellion and for Haman’s plan against Mordecai (Ant. 11: 246.267.289; cf. C.A. Evans, “Hanging and Crucifixion”, 487). The verb σταυρόω is also used in Add E 18 (all other occurrences of ‫ תלה‬are translated with κρεμάννυμι). However no mention of crucifixion should be implied in the description of suspension punishment, cf. G. Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, 224–227. Misinterpretations came as later generations interpreted biblical data with their current experience, cf. T.C.G. Thornton, “The Crucifixion of Haman”, 419–426; D.W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, 175; C.A. Evans, “Hanging and Crucifixion”, 484–493; J.G. Cook, Crucifixion, 315–326.

70

CHAPTER 2

3.2 ‫“ ׁשלט‬to gain dominion” Many of the stories of ancient times narrate the fight of power between nations or individuals. Similarly most wars are waged in order to conquer and subdue a land and its inhabitants (Josh 6:1–16; 1 Sam 7:10–14). The Book of Esther is included among the stories recounting the human strategies which lead to overpowering another person. 3.2.1 ‫ ׁשלט‬in the Scriptures Considered an Aramaism, ‫ ׁשלט‬is mainly found in the book of Daniel (2:38.39.48; 3:27; 5:7.16; 6:25)74 as well as two occurrences in wisdom literature (Qoh 2:19; 5:18).75 When it is conjugated in qal, the subject is always a person who can have dominion over a thing (Qoh 2:19) or another person (Qoh 8:9). In hiphil, ‫ ׁשלט‬describes the instances of God giving power to someone in order to accomplish a mission (Qoh 5:18; 8:9). The object over which one has power is expressed by the prepositions ‫ ב‬or ‫על‬. The associated noun ‫ ׁשליט‬is also present both in Hebrew and Aramaic and is used of those who have authority over someone else (Gen 42:6; Ezra 4:20; Dan 2:15) or over a kingdom (Neh 5:15; Dan 2:48). In two instances the meaning of ‫ ׁשלט‬is clearly exposed: in Neh 5:15 and Dan 6:25. In the first text, the former governors of Judah are described as profiting from their position to get food and silver and so exploiting their subjects. In the second, the author explains how Daniel’s opponents were thrown into the lions’ den where the animals overpowered them and “crushed them completely” (‫) ָכל־ּגַ ְר ֵמיהֹון ַה ִּדקּו‬. Hence ‫ ׁשלט‬means both exercising authority and executing violence. 3.2.2 ‫ ׁשלט‬in the Book of Esther The beginning of chapter 9 presents the only two occurrences of the verb ‫ׁשלט‬ in the book of Esther. In both cases its subject and objects are a collective noun (the enemies of the Jews and the Jews), which are subsequently inter-changed. The meaning of ‫ ׁשלט‬in 9:1 needs to be related to the entire book because this verse serves as a hinge between chapter 9 and the rest of the story. The enemies of the Jews are described as having the intention to subjugate the Jews (9:1: “the enemies of the Jews hoped to get the mastery over them [‫)”] ִל ְׁשלֹוט ָּב ֶהם‬, following Haman’s decree (3:12–13) which allows the total annihilation of the Jews (“to destroy, to slay and to annihilate all the Jews”). Nonetheless, this description of overpowering in 9:1 seems to refer not only 74   HALOT, 1521. 75  Cf. L. Rupert, “‫”קסם‬, 81.

Vocabulary Of Violence

71

to the Persians whose fortunes are altered but also alludes to Haman who planned the destruction of Mordecai’s people. Haman had conspired to overcome Mordecai by hanging him on the gallows (5:14). This scheme was turned against him and Haman died in the very way he had devised for his opponent (7:10). Thus, once Haman’s desire to defeat his enemy is frustrated, his experience could be considered an anticipation of what would be the end of those who want the destruction of the Jews. They get the same treatment that they were prepared to administer (9:5). In 9:12.16, the reader is told that there is a great massacre of the inhabitants of Susa and of the Persian Empire, describing ‫ ׁשלט‬as the violence and destruction executed on men. However, a second meaning of ‫ ׁשלט‬should not be discharged because, as a result of this violence, there is a change in the exercise of authority. Power and influence are transferred from Haman to Mordecai, who becomes second to the king and favours his people (10:3; cf. 3:1). In this way ‫ ׁשלט‬expresses in our book the double meaning found elsewhere in the Scriptures. 3.3 ‫“ ׁשלח יד‬to stretch out the hand” A gesture is a movement of a part of the body, especially a hand or the head, to express an idea, a feeling or an intention.76 As we will discuss in this section, an innocent gesture, such as stretching out the hand, can encompass a multiple variety of violent nuances. 3.3.1 ‫ ׁשלח יד‬in the Scriptures The expression ‫ ׁשלח יד‬can be literally translated as “to stretch out the hand”,77 having primarily a functional purpose,78 such as catching something (Gen 3:22; Exod 4:4; Judg 17:49; 1 Chr 13:9–10) or someone (Gen 48:14). It can also describe a hostile situation79 or indicate theft (Exod 22:7.10).80 For the most part ‫ׁשלח יד‬ remains a human gesture,81 save for a few references to a divine action.82 76  J. Murray et al., eds., The Oxford Dictionary of English, 568. 77   HALOT, 1512–1513. 78  O. Keel, Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen, 154. 79  P. Humbert, “Etendre la main” 387: “. . . le sens de šalah yad avec préposition, est surtout préhensif et agressif”. 80  The participial form of this expression (‫ )מׁשלח יד‬describes what God gave to his people (Deut 12:7.18; 15:10). 81  Differently, ‫ נטה יד‬designates a divine action performed either by God himself or a messenger on God’s behalf (cf. P. Humbert, “Etendre la main” 389–392). 82  7 out 57 occurrences: Exod 3:20; 9:15; 24:11; 2 Sam 24:16; Ezek 8:3; Dan 11:42; Ps 138:7.

72

CHAPTER 2

For our purpose we are mainly interested in the occurrences of ‫ׁשלח יד‬ denoting a human act of violence.83 In some of these references the object of the killing is expressed by either the preposition ‫( ב‬Gen 37:22; Neh 13:21) or ‫( אל‬Gen 22:12; 1 Sam 17:49; 2 Sam 18:12). According to us, the meaning of ‫ׁשלח‬ ‫ יד‬has evolved significantly until it becomes a synonym of an act of violence. In the first instance the basic meaning of ‫ ׁשלח יד‬was to stretch out one’s hand in order to seize the weapon with which one was going to hit (Judg 3:21; 15:15; 1 Sam 17:49). At a later stage ‫ ׁשלח יד‬was associated with verbs belonging to the semantic field of killing, such as ‫“ ׁשחט‬to slaughter” (Gen 22:10), ‫“ נכה‬to smite” (Judg 15:15), ‫“ הרג‬to kill” (1 Sam 24:11), and ‫“ ׁשלח‬to destroy” (2 Sam 1:14; 24:16).84 The final step in this association was to understand ‫ ׁשלח יד‬as a substitute for any attempt against someone’s life when it appears on its own in the context of violence or war (1 Sam 26:9; Isa 11:14; Ps 55:21). 3.3.2 ‫ ׁשלח יד‬in the Book of Esther Both the literal and figurative meanings of ‫ ׁשלח יד‬are present in the book of Esther. In chapter 9 this expression describes the stretching of one’s hand towards the plunder (9:10.15.16). Further instances of ‫ ׁשלח יד‬with the meaning of killing are the two eunuchs’ planned assassination attempt against the king (2:21–23; cf. 6:2); Haman’s plan to destroy Mordecai and all the Jews (3:6; cf. 8:7) and the description of the Jews’ revenge on their enemies (9:2). We will focus on these latter examples organising them according to the subject of ‫ׁשלח יד‬, either a Persian or the Jews. In the first instance, ‫ ׁשלח יד‬is assigned to the eunuchs’ and Haman’s plans to kill the king and all the Jews respectively. This desire is expressed by the verb ‫“ בקׁש‬to seek” as in the case of other biblical accounts. For instance, Pharaoh wants to kill Moses (Exod 2:15); the wicked plans to destroy the just (Ps 37:32) and Yhwh intends to annihilate all those who attack Jerusalem (Zech 12:9). The Persians’ plans to stretch out their hand against another come out into the light at the king’s gate, the place where death and destruction are plotted. While the eunuchs’ plan is stopped before it is realised, Haman’s develops into an organised scheme to destroy all the Jews, setting in motion all the bureaucratic machinery of the Persian Empire. In this way the author turns to the expression ‫ ׁשלח יד‬in order to encapsulate the other violent actions planned against the Jews (3:7–14). Moreover, when the Persians are the subject of ‫ׁשלח יד‬, 83   R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 108: “The phrase itself does not necessarily imply killing, though the context may suffest that a death is intended or is the result”. 84  See also the expression “Do not lay your hand (‫ל־ּת ְׁש ַלח יָ דָך‬ ִ ‫ ) ַא‬on the lad or do anything to him (‫אּוּמה‬ ָ ‫ְל־ּת ַעׂש לֹו ְמ‬ ַ ‫( ) ַא‬Gen 22:12).

Vocabulary Of Violence

73

they die by hanging and the reason given for their death is precisely the attempt to kill someone else (2:23; 8:7). Thus, the author gives this expression a negative connotation when he applies it to a Persian. On the other hand, the Jews follow the king’s decree and gather in order to kill (‫ )ׁשלח יד‬their enemies. This initiative prospers and the Persian death toll is reported without any mention of Jewish casualties. The meaning of ‫ׁשלח יד‬ changes and acquires a positive nuance of deliverance. Hence there are two main characteristics of this expression in the book of Esther: first its subject changes from a Persian to the Jewish people and second its consequences are also altered, from destruction of the individual Persian to salvation of the Jewish nation. 3.4 ‫“ ׁשמד‬to exterminate” The verb ‫ ׁשמד‬occurs in the niphal and hiphil conjugations, appearing in the latter almost three times as many as the former. The base meaning of both forms is “to exterminate” but there is a different nuance to each. The hiphil conjugation seems to represent the inner and deliberate decision to destroy something or annihilate someone as opposed to the highlighted action performed on the subject and underlined by the niphal form.85 3.4.1 ‫ ׁשמד‬in the Scriptures The subject of ‫ ׁשמד‬can be either God or a human.86 ‫ ׁשמד‬as an action is usually directed towards a human person (Deut 7:24) or a group of people (Josh 11:14; 2 Sam 21:5; Isa 14:23), sometimes the members of a contending dynasty (1 Kgs 15:29; 16:12; 2 Kgs 10:17). On other occasions, ‫ ׁשמד‬is used in reference to the destruction of cities (Mic 5:13) or to the obliteration of items associated with idolatry, such as the high places (Num 33:52) or Baal (2 Kgs 10:28). In similar circumstances ‫ ׁשמד‬illustrates the absolute eradication of the evildoers (Deut 6:15; 28:48; cf. Prov 14:11)87 during the conquest (Josh 24:8). When inserted into cultic texts, ‫ ׁשמד‬describes the ban in the holy war (Deut 4:3; Josh 24:8; Amos 2:9). These acts of destruction should be understood from the

85   HALOT, 1553. 86  N. Lohfink, “‫”ׁשמד‬, 185: “Wo erzählt wird, sind also eher Menschen Subj. von šmd. Wo gebetet wird, ist es umbekehrt. [. . . .] In Prophetenschriften ist der Befund komplizierter. [. . . .] Die šmd-Belege in Völkerorakeln sehen im Hintergrund zwar stets das göttliche Geschichtshandeln, doch die unmittelbaren Träger der Handlung sind geschgöpflich”. 87  In Deut 31:4, ‫ ׁשמד‬summarises all the actions leading to the destruction of Sihon and Og (Deut 2–3).

74

CHAPTER 2

sacral stand point as actions aiming to preserve the holiness of Israel as a covenantal people. The force of ‫ ׁשמד‬is underlined by its combination with other verbs expressing destruction such as ‫“ נכה‬to smite” (Josh 11:14; 2 Kgs 10:17); ‫“ ׁשחת‬to ruin” (2 Sam 14:11); ‫“ אבד‬to destroy” (Num 33:52; Isa 26:14); ‫“ הרג‬to kill” (2 Sam 14:7); ‫“ כרת‬to cut off” (1 Sam 24:22; Ezek 25:7); ‫“ פקד‬to visit” (Isa 26:14)88 and ‫“ חרם‬to exterminate” (Dan 11:44; 2 Chr 20:23) among others. Nonetheless, one cannot consider these words as synonyms of ‫ ׁשמד‬because in certain circumstances they express sequential actions.89 3.4.2 ‫ ׁשמד‬in the Book of Esther Statistically the Meghillah has the highest density of ‫ ׁשמד‬among the books of the Bible.90 It always appears in the hiphil form and, although it appears on its own (Esth 3:6; 4:8), ‫ ׁשמד‬is also associated with ‫ אבד‬and ‫( הרג‬3:13; 7:4; 8:1191), two verbs which explain and modify its meaning. Further, it is important to note that ‫ ׁשמד‬only appears in the infinitive form depending on a verb of intention whose subject is Haman (‫ בקׁש‬3:6) and in an order given by Ahasuerus (‫ נתן‬8:11). In this way ‫ ׁשמד‬does not designate an action but rather a threat that overshadows the entire Meghillah. Haman’s plan against the Jews is summed up by ‫ ׁשמד‬in two occasions. In 3:6 ‫ ׁשמד‬is related to the expression ‫ ׁשלח יד‬as a declaration of Haman’s plan to destroy all the Jews, a decision prompted by Mordecai’s refusal to pay him homage (3:5). So the planned pogrom is a direct consequence of anger. Similarly, when Mordecai explains to Esther what had been decreed against the Jews he synthesises all the plans with the verb ‫( ׁשמד‬4:8). Moreover, Haman’s desire grows into a master plan to obliterate all the Jews and such a proposal takes the shape of a well thought out strategy elaborated into a royal decree (3:13). In the context of this legal document sanctioned by the king, ‫ ׁשמד‬is linked with ‫ אבד‬and ‫ הרג‬indicating the prescribed total annihilation. The entire extermination is corroborated by the hendiadys of verse 13: those to be killed are “all Jews, young and old, women and children”. Both 88  This verb is a technical term referring to the divine punishing visit, cf. W. Schottroff, “‫”פקד‬, 477–484. 89  For instance, Josh 11:14: “And all the spoil of these cities and the cattle, the people of Israel took for their booty; but every man they smote (‫ ) ִה ּ֣כּו‬with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them (‫אֹותם‬ ָ ‫ד־ה ְׁש ִמ ָדם‬ ִ ‫) ַע‬, and they did not leave any that breathed”. 90  N. Lohfink, “‫”ׁשמד‬, 177. 91  Even though there are variants in which ‫ ׁשמד‬does not appear, these correspond to independent recensions, TWAT, VIII, 177.

Vocabulary Of Violence

75

verbs appear together again when Esther pleads for the life of her people (7:4). She reports the same words as Haman’s decree, showing knowledge of its contents including that the act of exterminating all the Jews is the result of a monetary transaction (3:9).92 Therefore ‫ ׁשמד‬is connected with the idea of slavery because Haman has bought the rights over the Jews and can destroy them at will (cf. 7:4). A further occurrence of this sequence of verbs is the royal decree drawn up by Mordecai and Esther allowing the Jews to defend their life (8:11 ‫על־נפׁשם‬ ‫)ולעמד‬. The description of what the Jews are allowed to do against their foes can be understood as the just revenge they can take on their enemies.93 The king grants the Jews the right to life and by using the same terms as Haman’s decree, Mordecai’s tries to counter the former.94 This decree is acted out in Esther 9 with the result of limited casualties and not the total genocide of a race. The appearance of ‫ ׁשמד‬in the text creates suspense and makes the reader attentive to the later development of events. The threat of destruction provokes fear in Esther and among the inhabitants of the Empire leading each of them to different actions: the queen is ready to jeopardise her life because of dread (4:17) while the Persians decide to support the Jews because they are afraid (8:17). In this way the menace of destruction moves the plot forward. A close reading of the Meghillah brings us to the following conclusion. In the biblical accounts ‫ ׁשמד‬is related to the total annihilation of a people or an individual. The only description of such an event is the death of Haman. Thus he becomes the object of ‫ ׁשמד‬par excellence to the point that his name is erased from the story and his dynasty is wiped out (cf. 9:7–10). 3.5 ‫“ אבד‬to (cause to) perish” The verb ‫ אבד‬is found in the qal, piel and hiphil conjugations throughout the biblical corpus. It would seem that the original meaning referred to lost cattle or sheep (cf. 1 Sam 9:3; Ezek 34:4.12). Such meaning developed into the idea of perishing, since experience proved that most of the lost animals would

92   L.B. Paton, Esther, 206: “We must suppose, therefore, with Jos. and most comm., that the author means to represent Haman as promising this sum out of his own private fortune. [. . .] Haman hopes that his generous offer will tempt the King to look with favour upon his plan”. 93  Cf. T. Miller, Three Versions, 53–62. 94  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 341.

76

CHAPTER 2

be destroyed and die. Eventually this latter meaning became prevalent in Hebrew95 and will be briefly studied now. 3.5.1 ‫ אבד‬in the Scriptures Both God and the human subject of ‫ אבד‬destroy the signs of idolatry (Num 33:52; Deut 12:2; Ezek 6:3; 30:13) or a nation (Deut 9:3; 28:20; 2 Kgs 24:2; Zeph 2:13). Hence the majority of ‫’אבד‬s occurrences with a transitive meaning are in military or cultic contexts. Additionally, the verb ‫ אבד‬does not always appear as a transitive verb. When ‫ אבד‬is not accompanied by a direct object, its meaning moves towards “to perish” and therefore the subject of the action is the person (Num 16:33; Zech 9:5; Prov 28:28) or thing (Amos 3:15; Joel 1:11; Jonah 4:10) to be destroyed. In all these examples God’s involvement can be presupposed, even at a distance.96 In the depiction of the processes of destruction, ‫ אבד‬is associated with other verbs, such as ‫“ נתץ‬to pull down” (Jer 18:7); ‫“ ׁשמד‬to exterminate” (Deut 4:26; Isa 26:14); ‫“ כרת‬to cut down” (Jer 9:28; Ezek 25:7); ‫“ נכה‬to smite” (Amos 3:15; Mic 5:9); ‫“ פקד‬to visit”. Sometimes, total destruction is also expressed by the image of being burnt (Deut 12:3; 2 Kgs 19:18; Ps 80:17; Isa 37:19). Therefore ‫ אבד‬should be understood as referring to the utter obliteration of someone or something. 3.5.2 ‫ אבד‬in the Book of Esther There are 13 occurrences of ‫ אבד‬in the book of Esther. The verb appears in the narrative sections, in the dialogues and in the king’s legal edict; both in finite and infinitive forms. After planning his strategy against all the Jews (Esth 3:6–7), Haman approaches the king in order to convince him about the need to exterminate them. Haman’s speech is well measured and thought out: the Jews are a hindrance to the Empire because they are different and a potential cause of division. Hence Haman suggests the king to decree their extermination: “if it pleases the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed (‫( ”)יִ ָּכ ֵתב ְל ַא ְּב ָדם‬3:8–9). The way the sentence is phrased seems to take the responsibility away from the king who only needs to sanction the decree to be written by Haman.97 The edict is composed and dispatched (3:13) and Haman’s words are to be found in it (‫ ְּול ַא ֵּבד‬and ‫ ) ְל ַה ְׁש ִמיד‬with the addition of ‫להר ֹג‬ ֲ . This triad expresses the tragedy which is premeditated against the Jews and the totality of the slaughter.98 95  B. Otzen, “‫”אבד‬, 20. 96  B. Otzen, “‫”אבד‬, 22–23. 97   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 51. 98  A. Berlin, Esther, 42.

Vocabulary Of Violence

77

These verbs are taken up afterwards by Esther (7:4) when she speaks to the king on behalf of the Jews. In this way ‫ אבד‬summarises the scheme developed by Haman in order to do away with all the Jews (8:5; 9:24).99 Mordecai also describes the projected evil against the Jews with ‫ אבד‬when he sends Esther a copy of Haman’s decree (4:8). His intentions were clear; Esther must understand the seriousness of the situation and make a move. At first, Esther refuses to act and therefore Mordecai speaks more directly to her: she will be among those who would die and so would he, as the only member of her father’s house (4:14).100 Esther is convinced in this manner to take up the challenge of representing the Jewish people before the king. The Queen decides to approach the king saying “if I must perish, I will” (‫דּתי ָא ָב ְד ִּתי‬ ִ ‫)וְ ַכ ֲא ֶׁשר ָא ַב‬, a conditional sentence interpreted by some as words of utter despair101 while others understand it as an expression of the courageous determination of someone who faces danger with the hope of success (cf. Gen 43:14).102 The king spares Esther’s life and listens to her request starting the mechanism of salvation of all the Jews. After Haman’s death, the Jews become the subject of ‫ אבד‬while the Persians become its object. Esther requests a decree from the king allowing the Jews to defend their lives (8:11). The queen’s entreaty is favoured and a law is produced in similar terms to Haman’s decree in chapter 3. The text of the edict includes the idea of vengeance by quoting Haman’s letter about the Jews with the difference that, whilst ‫ אבד‬has the meaning of utter destruction in Haman’s decree, the Jews only kill a limited number, “five hundred men” in the citadel of Susa.103 A further distinction should be made depending on whom the subject of ‫ אבד‬is. First of all, when the Persians are the subject, there is a planned pogrom, then the massacre is decreed but does not happen. On the other hand, when the Jews are the subject of ‫אבד‬, the sequence is as follows: the king decrees and the Jews obey the law killing the Persian. The threat portrayed by ‫ אבד‬is made real with the Jews’ actions of self-defence as expressed by the verb ‫הרג‬. Hence, Haman’s accusation of the Jews’ disobedience, which had brought the king to decree their extermination, is proved false. The Jews put the king’s decree into practice even though the readers are not sure whether or not the Persians did. 99   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 51. 100  Fox links this expression with other stories in which the members of someone’s family were also destroyed as in the case of Achan and Korah (Num 16:28–35), cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 62–63. 101   L.B. Paton, Esther, 226; GK §106o. 102   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 64. 103  Numbers need to be interpreted with irony, cf. J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 359.

78

CHAPTER 2

3.6 ‫“ הרג‬to kill” In the Hebrew Scriptures, the root ‫ הרג‬recurs both as a verb and as a noun. Most of its verbal occurrences are in the active form even though there are some examples of passive qal participles (Isa 10:4; 14:19; Ezek 37:9) and niphal imperfects (Ezek 26:6; Lam 2:20). In these cases, the stress falls on the result of the action, that is, the dead person. Similarly, attention is drawn to the results of killing when the nominal form appears in the text (Isa 30:25; Ezek 26:15). In our study, however, we will focus not only on these final results but also on the reasons for doing away with someone. 3.6.1 ‫ הרג‬in the Scriptures The vast majority of instances described by ‫ הרג‬refer to an action executed by a human agent, even though the killing can also be attributed to an animal (2 Kgs 17:25; Job 20:16) or to God (Exod 4:23; Ps 78:31; Isa 27:1). Most instances of killing happen in the context of battle (Num 31:19; 1 Kgs 9:16), even though ‫הרג‬ is also used in the legal system in order to re-establish justice (Exod 22:23) or as a punishment for sexual offences (Lev 20:15–16) and for idolatry (Exod 32:27; Num 25:5; Deut 13:10). However there are different reasons leading people to kill someone else other than the commands stipulated in the legal systems. The first recorded murder in Scripture is the result of Cain’s jealousy of his brother Abel (Gen 4:8); Simeon and Levi killed Shechem and his family in order to regain the honour lost by the rape of Dinah, their sister (Gen 34:25–26). Esau planned to kill Jacob when he realised that he had been tricked (Gen 27:41–42) and kings killed all the possible contenders to the throne so as to remove their rivals (Judg 9:5; 2 Kgs 11:16.18; 2 Chr 23:17). Moreover, the threat of murder does not always come about (Gen 37:20.26), giving way, on certain occasions to revenge (Gen 4:15; cf. 2 Chr 25:3). In order to understand the full meaning of the verb ‫ הרג‬it should be related to other verbs expressing the same concept such as ‫“ אבד‬to destroy” (Prov 1:32), ‫“ נכה‬to smite” (Exod 2:12–14; Ps 135:10), ‫“ טבח‬to slaughter” (Lam 2:21), ‫רטׁש‬ “to dash in pieces” and ‫“ בקע‬to break open” (2 Kgs 8:12); ‫“ ׁשחת‬to ruin” (Jer 15:3) or ‫“ מות‬to die” (Josh 11:17; Job 5:2). 3.6.2 ‫ הרג‬in the Book of Esther The author of the Meghillah sets the verb ‫ הרג‬in two contexts: the edicts permitting combat and the description of the Jewish violence against the Persians. ‫ הרג‬is found together with ‫ אבד‬and ‫ ׁשמד‬in the decrees of extermination of a people, firstly the Jews (3:13, cf. 7:4) and then their enemies (8:11). Further, the king takes an active responsibility in the killing of the Persians by directly

Vocabulary Of Violence

79

ordering a second day when the Jews can kill their enemies (9:14). This attitude contrasts with the previous decree in which he had shown only a passive interest and delegated all the authority to either Haman or Mordecai. In chapter 9 the Jews are the subject of ‫ הרג‬while the Persians, including Haman’s ten children, become its object. ‫ הרג‬explains what happened in the citadel of Susa (9:6) and in the provinces (9:16) and is related to ‫ נכה‬and ‫אבד‬ both in its nominal and verbal forms (9:5). In this manner the pattern of command-execution is portrayed with a perfect coincidence between what had been decreed (cf. 8:11) and what actually happens. Even though there is no systematic description of the battle, the attention is drawn to the consequences of putting the decree into practice. This outcome is highlighted by the image of the sword, which is a common instrument of murder in the Scriptures (Exod 5:21; Ezek 9:6). Nonetheless, in the current literary context these actions are not the result of a personal initiative but the effect of an order from a higher authority leading to the exercise of retributive justice.104 In addition the only way of understanding this episode in all its goriness is by thinking of it not as a historical account but as an exaggerated description of a typical situation that the Jewish nation had gone through in its history, told with a great dose of irony.105 At first, murdering is instigated by Haman’s anger when his honour is trampled on by Mordecai. Subsequently, when the Jews kill their enemies with the king’s approval, they are doing an act of self-defence and vengeance in order to re-establish the just order. In addition, the account in chapter 9 should be understood in the light of a festival aetiology.106 The description of 9:1–5 is just the report of how the deliverance of the Jews came about. The relief does not stop at this point because the author needs to justify the second day of festivities in Susa and thus the story continues with the queen’s request for a second day of fighting in the citadel and the provinces. This second day of killing makes the narrative develop and provides an explanation for the celebrations of Purim which perpetuate the consequences of killing. 3.7 ‫“ נקם‬to take revenge” Contrasting with present-day society, vengeance is not a negative concept for the biblical mind. The notion of vengeance is expressed mostly by the root

104  E. Greenstein, “Jewish Readings”, 236. 105  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 359. 106  Cf. F.W. Bush, Esther, 487–488; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 158–167; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 125; A. Berlin, Esther, 90.

80

CHAPTER 2

‫ נקם‬107 and is associated mainly with God (Deut 32:43; Isa 35:4).108 ‫ נקם‬is also predicated of humans, who act vengefully as a personal initiative or on behalf of Yhwh.

3.7.1 ‫ נקם‬in the Scriptures The root ‫ נקם‬recurs 36 times as a verb in different conjugations (qal, niphal, piel, and hithpael)109 and 44 times as a nominal form, either ‫ נָ ָקם‬or ‫נְ ָק ָמה‬. Different contexts call for vengeance,110 such as offenses to honour (Gen 34:25–27; Judg 16:28–30).111 Vengeance is part of the legal system112 and is related to justice (for instance, Isa 59:17 sets ‫ נָ ָקם‬in parallel with ‫) ְצ ָד ָקה‬.113 At a basic level, any vengeance must be proportionate to the evil inflicted (Exod 21:23–25)114 or must tend towards a punishment suitable for the crime committed (Josh 10:12–13; Jer 15:15).115 For example, an unintentional murder is not to be chastised in the same way as a premeditated action (cf. Exod 21:12–14).116 107  Other roots related to this concept are: ‫( נחם‬Gen 27:42; Isa 1:24; Ezek 5:13); ‫( ריב‬1 Sam 25:39); ‫( דרׁש‬Gen 9:5; 2Chr 24:22); ‫( בקׁש‬1 Sam 20:16; Ezek 33:8); ‫( גאל‬2 Sam 14:11); cf. H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 16–19. 108  H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 102–264; cf. G. Barbaglio, Dio violento?, 126–139. 109  The form ‫ יֻ ַּקם‬in Gen 4:15.24; Exod 21:21 has been considered a hophal but should be analysed as passive qal, cf. GK 53u. 110  In the view of Henrick Peels, five are the circumstances in which ‫ נקם‬can be applied: 1. the juridical vengeance indicating the result of a legal suit (Ps 58:11); 2. the retributive vengeance, in the sense of the justified punishment of the sinner or the enemy (Exod 21:20); 3. vengeance which liberates from oppression and restores justice (Isa 1:24); 4. vengeance administered as a result of emotional processes, such as anger (Ezek 25:12); 5. vengeance enacted to appease situations of animosity (Nah 1:2) (cf. H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 266.). 111  For other examples of vengeance in the Scriptures, cf. A. Lemaire, “Vengeance et justice dans l’Ancien Israël”, 17–24. 112  Vengeance is restrained by the practice of asylum at the altar (Exod 21:12–14; 1 Kgs 1:50–53) or the legislation of the refuge cities (Deut 19:1–13). 113  Cf. P. Bovati, Ristabilire la giustizia. 45–48. 347–351. Also see L. Alonso Schökel, “La Rédemption”, 455. 114  As expressed in the lex talionis: “If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exod 21:23–25); cf. P.J. Nel, “The Talion Principle”, 21–29; J. van Seters, “Some Observations”, 27–37; Y.S. Kim, “Lex Talionis”, 2–11. 115  In this way Israel is inserted in the practices of the Ancient Near East, which limited vengeance and violence by passing from private punishment to public executions, cf. H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 80; P. Rémy, “Peine de mort”, 324–331; D.A. Leggett, The Levirate, 63–81. 116  P. Rémy, “Peine de mort”, 332.

Vocabulary Of Violence

81

Accordingly, there are two characteristics of vengeance: a correlation between the harm inflicted and its punishment and its normative regularion by law. There are two main scenarios allowing revenge, namely war and blood vengeance. War in Israel is usually waged in order to exact vengeance on Israel’s enemies (Josh 10:13; 1 Sam 14:24; 18:25). The people of Israel often fight to defend themselves from a previous act of aggression and use violence to establish justice (1 Sam 14:24; 18:25). In this way vengeance serves God in the plan to deliver the Israelites by establishing the dominion of its executor in the first instance and subsequently of God, on whose behalf the vindicator operates.117 As for the case of blood vengeance118 within the family or the clan, this modality of revenge is taken by the go’el (Num 35:19–27; Deut 19:6.12; Josh 20:3.5.9; 1 Kgs 2:5–9; cf. Exod 21:20ff)119 who became, not only an institution, but also the instrument for the administration of justice from the early period of Israelite history.120 This figure shows the solidarity among the members of the family or clan121 and confirms that vengeance is taken on enemies and never within the community of Israel (Lev 19:18).122 In this sense, the go’el as avenger of blood falls not only within legal categories but enlightens the theological aspects of vengeance.123

117   G.E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 77. 118  Peels criticises the unanimous agreed view that ‫ נקם‬and blood vengeance are always connected and at times treated as synonymous, see H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 79–86. 119  There are three aspects in which the role of the go’el is enacted, when redeeming property (Lev 25:23–28), persons (Lev 25:47–55) or acting as redeemer of blood. See D.A. Leggett, The Levirate, 83–139; also H. Ringgren, “‫”גאל‬, 886–887. This institution is subsequently applied to the theological reflection on God’s dealings with Israel, cf. L. Alonso Schökel, “La Rédemption”, 456–462. 120   D.A. Leggett, The Levirate, 136: “the goel of blood operates in the interests of the kin group and as the agent of the state”. 121  H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 79: “A useful description of the blood vengeance concept is as follows: ‘The right and obligation, in the case of the murder of a blood relative, to enact vengeance upon the murderer and his descendants”. Hence this institution had two characteristics, reaction to murder and relation to family or tribe. Cf. L. Alonso Schökel, “La Rédemption”, 455–456. 122  Cf. H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 43–51. 123   D.A. Leggett, The Levirate, 110. Blood vengeance can also be caused by psychological (to appease feelings of anger, pride or honour), material (to rebalance the lost family member), superstitious (the soul of the person would not be at peace till s/he was avenged) and moral motives (to satisfy the infringement of the right), cf. H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 81.

82

CHAPTER 2

‫ נקם‬in the Book of Esther 3.7.2 When applied to Esther, ‫ נקם‬can be defined as “a punitive action and presupposes a prior wrong, that is, some offense to which the avenging party is responding”.124 Accordingly, even though the term ‫ נקם‬appears only once (8:13), vengeance is a running theme in the book. In 8:13, the niphal infinitive construct of ‫ נקם‬has a reflexive value. The subject of this action is all the Jews who are responding to the evil inflicted on them by “their enemies” (‫) ֵמא ֵֹיב ֶיהם‬.125 No description of this offense is given in the text but in Mordecai’s decree (8:11) the same words as Haman’s edict are used making the action of the Jews only the proportionate response to an attack previously planned.126 Vengeance takes three steps in the Meghillah: violence commanded by the royal decree, the execution of that revenge on the pre-arranged date and the further day of violence requested by Esther.127 Even though we will study in detail these three stages at a later phase in this work, it is worth exploring now what the content of vengeance in the Meghillah is. The concept of vengeance appears as an explanation of the decree promulgated by Mordecai on behalf of the king. The edict allows the Jews to defend themselves (‫ ) ַל ֲעמֹד ַעל־נַ ְפ ָׁשם‬by way of destroying, killing and annihilating (‫ ) ְל ַה ְׁש ִמיד וְ ַל ֲהר ֹג ְּול ַא ֵּבד‬anyone who attacks them (8:11–12). These actions128 are subsequently described by the term vengeance (8:13). When the day of vengeance129 came (9:1), the Jews did what they pleased with those who hated them (9:5) accomplishing a massacre (9:12.16). This slaughtering was extended following queen Esther’s request for a second day of violence (9:13). The Jews’ revenge is therefore an exercise in self-defence against those who made an attempt on their lives130 following the king’s command and all legal procedures.131 In this act of revenge the Jews follow the description given elsewhere in the Scriptures when vengeance is taken against enemies (cf. Gen 34:25–29; Judg 7–8). 124   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 101. 125  H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God, 97: “[t]he vengeance in 8:13 refers to the legitimate retributive action in response to the exterminations plans devised by Haman and cohorts”. 126   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 101. A. Berlin, Esther, 78: “The term n-k-m does not signified senseless killing, but rather justified retaliation”. 127  Cf. N. Calduch-Benages, “War, Violence and Revenge”, 136–140. 128  We note that LXX interprets ‫ ְל ִהּנָ ֵקם‬as πολεμῆσαι. The vengeance of the Jews takes place in the context of battle. 129  See Prov 6:34; Isa 34:8; 61:2; 63:4. In Isaiah, this day is God’s future action against the enemies of Israel. 130  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 342. 131   T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 139.

Vocabulary Of Violence

83

However this event is not the only instance of revenge in the book of Esther.132 The wording used by Mordecai in his edict is a clear copy of the decree written by Haman in the earlier part of the book (3:12–13) as a result of his personal revenge against all the Jews (3:6).133 Haman’s vendetta is not the response to an attack on his person but the reaction against an offense to his honour, deserving the same treatment as an assault on his physical integrity. Further Haman also tried to take revenge on Mordecai alone by following the advice of his wife and friends to construct the gallows at his house (5:10–14). In both cases, Haman’s desire for revenge arises from anger due to Mordecai’s refusal to pay him homage when they meet (3:5, “Haman was filled with anger” ‫)ּיִ ָּמ ֵלא ָה ָמן ֵח ָמה‬.134 Additionally Haman’s desire for personal revenge is a private initiative condemned to failure because it is not decreed by any human or divine authority and targets the annihilation of the Jews.135 We conclude that the vengeance described in Esther 8–9 is proportionate to the evil inflicted or threatened in earlier chapters, as shown by the use of the same vocabulary. The author describes this violence as an example of retributive justice regulated by the king through a royal decree. Haman, instead, plans the retaliation against Mordecai as a personal scheme which does not prosper and leads him to destruction. Haman receives the same end he had plotted for his opponent, that is, death and dishonour. 4 Conclusion All the words analysed point to the good of the Jewish people and their preservation.136 From the outset the Jews are opposed by an enemy who subsequently creates a group of followers in his persecution of Mordecai’s race. 132  Taken in a broader sense, the lex talionis is applied in the book. Such law has as its guiding principle the dynamics of ‘instead of’ represented in different aspects of the Meghillah such as, Esther instead of Vashti or Mordecai instead of Haman. These changes aim at the restoration of balance, cf. W.T. McBride, “Esther passes”, 214. 133  A. Lemaire, “Vengeance et justice dans l’Ancien Israël”, 23. 134  Cf. also Esth 5:9: ‫ל־מ ְר ֳּד ַכי ֵח ָמה‬ ָ ‫“ ּיִ ָּמ ֵלא ָה ָמן ַע‬and Haman was filled with anger at Mordecai”. 135  Samson’s revenge on the Philistines (Judg 16:28) is technically not commanded by God but is part of the mission which God had planned for Samson: “to begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines” (Judg 13:5) and therefore willed by God. 136  Vialle arrives at a similar conclusion when she writes: “Dans l’ensemble, le hasard et le coïncidences, comme les interventions des personnages secondaires, convergent vers un même but: la sauvegarde et la promotion des protagonistes juifs, ainsi que l’échec des projets d’Haman le mauvais” (C. Vialle, “La problématique du pouvoir”, 576.).

84

CHAPTER 2

The assaults on the Jews produced by anger and hatred do not have the same effect in them, leaving the Persians as the only people who are enraged in the story. Their anger is the result of an attack on their honour137 and their infuriated reaction is set as an example of what happens to the person whose anger does not cease to the point that such individual is eventually consumed by fury and destroyed by wrath. The irrationality of anger contrasts with the order attributed to the Persian empire, organised by strict rules, regulations and decrees; even legislating acts of violence. The only killings which prosper in the Meghillah are those commanded by royal authority and thus vengeance becomes an action sanctioned by the king in order to re establish order and bring the social situation back to normality. In addition, the author has in mind the goodness of society at large and not only the prosperity of a nation. He describes this desire by the final picture of ‫( ׁשלום‬Esth 10:3). Paradoxically, in the book, the situation of lasting wholeness and relief is attained even if it entails acts of violence and the execution of the death penalty.138 Even though God is never mentioned in the entire Book, the author uses well known expressions in order to show the divine design for the people of Israel. This would be more evident in the next step of our research when studying how the narrative of the Book of Esther is constructed and how its author inserted the vocabulary of violence into the plot of the story.

137   T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 71–72. 138  The death penalty has a fourfold function in society: 1. the elimination of dangerous people; 2. dissuasion for those who think about doing evil; 3. compensation for the evil committed; and 4. purification of society and the family (cf. F. Bille, “La peine de mort”, 125–127).

CHAPTER 3

Violence in the Narrative of Esther But, as thou dishonoured him without reason and said so many evil words, his wrath kindled and, as he could not take revenge on thee, when he saw himself on his own, he vented upon me his ire with the result that I think I will no longer be a man in my whole life1

⸪ A recent commentary describes Esther as a jewel of Hebrew literature2 even though it would seem that the Meghillah has been neglected by narrative criticism.3 Robert Alter provides a clue to what the reason might be for such an omission when he writes that the books of Esther and Daniel “composed in the latter part of this period [that of the composition of the Hebrew Bible], during or after the Babylonian Exile, generally reflect rather new literary practices”.4 Hence scholars would not be interested in them from the point of view of classical Hebrew literature. This view is also shared by Jacob Licht who considers that “the book of Esther represents a definitive shift of literary taste; it is a sort of baroque to the classicism of the main narrative tradition”.5 1  M. de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quijote, Cap XXXI, libro I: “Mas, como vuestra merced le deshonró tan sin propósito y le dijo tantas villanías, encendiósele la cólera, y, como no la pudo vengar en vuestra merced, cuando se vio solo descargó sobre mí el nublado, de modo que me parece que no seré mas hombre en toda mi vida”. The translation is mine. 2  A. Minissale, Ester, 55: “Il libro di Ester si presenta, dal punto de vista stilistico, come un piccolo gioiello letterario”. 3  No monograph has been written with an in-depth study of the narrative of Esther. Some works devote a chapter or a section to this topic. See R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 127–246. 4  R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, ix. 5  J. Licht, Storytelling, 107. For an analysis of Esther’s style and syntax, the old study by Hans Striedl still holds. He points out some of the roots that appear frequently and some of the features such as the word order, emphatic particles, repetition of words and phrases. He also finds characteristics similar to the late Hebrew of Chronicles and points out that whereas there are Persian words no Greek terms appear in the Masoretic text, cf. H. Striedl,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_005

86

CHAPTER 3

In this chapter we do not intend to give a detailed commentary on the Scroll of Esther or point out all its major narrative characteristics. Instead, our main focus will be on the role played in the story by the dynamics of violence and revenge. To achieve our aim, we will use some of the instruments of narrative criticism.6 1

Literary Composition

Any narrative is composed of both the “telling” or narrative and the “showing” or scenic mode. The former includes the summaries, commentaries, and judgments made by the narrator whereas the latter is made of the detailed scenes and dialogues by the characters composed equally by the narrator.7 Once the stage is prepared the protagonists are set to act. In this way the reader is left to make his or her evaluation of the characters and the plot by the information provided by these two modes of the narration. In the Meghillah the ratio of narration to direct speech is higher than in any other book of the Bible.8 The speeches, both direct and reported, are included in the narrative and, whereas all direct speech is between two characters, in the case of indirect speech, the eunuch Hatath mediates between Esther and Mordecai (4:5–16). Whenever the dialogues are relevant to the topic of our inquiry, they are analysed in depth. As part of the narrative some examples of edicts or laws are also recorded in the main body of the text, which likewise will be the subject of our study. Having divided the text into its components, we will place the terms studied in chapter 2 of our study in their context, whether they refer to narration, the

“Untersuchugen”, 73–108. For a study of further literary features, such as alliteration, assonance, hyperboles and others see W. Dommershausen, Die Estherrolle, xxvi. 6  The totality of the characteristics by which a text can be considered a narrative is also called narrativity. These features are a series of events arranged according to a plot and set in a temporal-causal relationship and the existence of a agent-hero whose actions bring the plot to its end. The science that studies this feature is referred to as narratology. Narrative criticism, on the other hand, studies the effects of the meanings brought out by the arrangement of the narrative. It presupposes that the narrative has been arranged with the intention of passing a message to the reader, cf. D. Marguerat – Y. Bourquin, La Bible se raconte, 7–24. 7  Cf. J.-P. Sonnet, “L’analyse narrative”, 73–76. 8  A. Berlin, Esther, xxvi; J.M. Sasson, “Esther”, 336.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

87

speeches or the legal documents. In this work we will be aided by the study of Alviero Niccacci9 and its application to different biblical accounts.10 1.1 What Kind of Plot? Despite many attempts to propose a concentric structure for the book of Esther,11 we advocate a linear arrangement of the plot which brings the story to its present conclusion, i.e. a situation of peace and tranquillity. Such a state of affairs is the result of a progression which encompasses all the turnabouts in the story and makes up the different stages of the narration.12 1.1.1 Episodes in the Plot Accounts are divided into episodes to facilitate the reading and understanding of the story. The episodes are usually self-contained units with their own structure and are delimited by both formal markers and their own contents.13 Most commentaries divide the text into different episodes even though no reasons are given for the particular division.14 We will account briefly for our distribution of the Meghillah in 14 episodes. They are 1:1–22; 2:1–4; 2:5–20; 2:21–23; 3:1–15; 4:1–17; 5:1–8; 5:9–14; 6:1–11; 6:12–14; 7:1–10; 8:1–17; 9:1–32 and 10:1–3. Chapter 1 opens with a formal sign of the structure (‫ )וַ יְ ִהי‬and has a unity of content around the happenings at the initial banquets. The second episode starts with a formal marker (‫“ ַא ַחר ַה ְּד ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶּלה‬after these events”) and 9  A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. 10  For example, A. Niccacci – M. Pazzini, Il rotolo di Rut; A. Niccacci – M. Pazzini – R. Tadiello, Il libro di Giona. 11  See discussion chapter 1 §3.3. Cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 5–12; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 158–163; J. Grossman, Esther, 12–16; A. Winitzer, “The Reversal of Fortune”, 173–181. Whedbee postulates that the U-shape is part of the comic features of this tale (cf. J.W. Whedbee, The Bible and the Comic Vision, 172). 12  As expressed by Aristotle in his Poetics, 1455b, 24–29. This classical threefold scheme has been developed into a quinary scheme consisting of exposition, complication, transforming action, denouement and final solution, cf. D. Marguerat – Y. Bourquin, La Bible se raconte, 54–64. 13  With Ska, “we call the first subdivision of a larger narrative an ‘episode’ and the subdivisions of an episode ‘scenes’. In general, an episode develops its own complete ‘micro-plot’ within the macro-plot of the larger narrative, especially in an ‘episodic plot’ [. . .] ‘act’ is often synonymous with ‘episode’ ” (J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 33). 14  Cf. F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 336–337; J. Vílchez, Ester, 14–16; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 13; M.H. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, XI–XII; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 14–62; R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther.

88

CHAPTER 3

finishes with the royal consent to what his servants had suggested (2:4). A third episode (2:5–20) begins with an analepsis which introduces some new characters, takes the reader to a new time reference and goes on to describe how Esther becomes a queen. This episode is followed by the short account of the eunuchs’ rebellion (2:21–23) which is divided from what preceded it by a formal start (‫“ ַּבּיָ ִמים ָה ֵהם‬in those days”) and the introduction of new characters. Chapter 3 introduces Haman and the theme of the edict of pogrom. It formally begins with the expression ‫“( ַא ַחר ַה ְּד ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶּלה‬after these events”) and finishes with a swift change of location when chapter 4 starts. This chapter is a unity made out by the conversation between Mordecai and Esther whereas the following chapter is split in two episodes delimited by their own cast. In the first (5:1–8) the protagonists are Esther, Ahasuerus and Haman whilst in the second (5:9–14) Haman, his wife and his friends become the actors. With the change of location the new episode is consolidated. Chapter 6 can also be divided into two episodes: 6:1–11 and 6:12–14, delimitated by the changes of characters, place and theme. These episodes are followed by chapters 7 and 8 which we prefer to keep as separate units for the following reasons. First, 7:10 describes how the king’s anger subsides finishing in this way an idea. Second, 8:1–2 introduces Mordecai who is not present in chapter 7 and one could postulate that the scene takes place in the king’s palace and not the queen’s. The beginning of chapter 9 provides a formal break with the previous episode (‫“ ִּוב ְׁשנֵ ים ָע ָׂשר ח ֶֹדׁש‬on the twelfth month”) and should be considered the start of a new one. This episode is a unit in which the fighting, victory and subsequent rejoicing of the Jews are described. Finally chapter 10 develops a different idea and through the introduction of the king and Mordecai constitutes another episode on its own. 1.1.2 Unified Plot The book of Esther presents a unified plot15 constructed by episodes which run from beginning to end and support one another. Other than a flashback to the times of the deportation (2:5–7), the narrator tells the events as they happen following a logical sequential order, even though at times the reader is not familiar with all the reasons why something happens. For instance, the reader

15  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 12–13. In a unified plot “all the episodes are relevant to the narrative and have a bearing on the outcome of the events recounted. Every episode supposes what precedes and prepares for what follows” (J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 17).

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

89

is not told why Vashti refused to come to the banquet (1:12) or why the king exalted Haman and forgot about Mordecai (3:1). Several efforts have been made to organise the lineal plot of the Meghillah. Two main conclusions are deduced by modern day authors, namely, there is either a number of plots in the book of Esther or a plurality in some of the elements within the one plot. According to Shimon Bar-Efrat there is a main plot and a subplot in the Meghillah.16 The main plot deals with the conflict between Haman and Mordecai and its resolution at Esther’s second banquet when Haman’s plans are revealed and he is executed. As a consequence of his death, Mordecai takes the Agagite’s place and the Jews are allowed to take revenge on their enemies. Simultaneously, the subplot starts when Mordecai gets to know Bigthan and Teresh’s plan to assassinate Ahasuerus and makes it known to the king. The honour given to Mordecai in chapter 6 and the humiliation suffered by Haman prepare the turning point of the story at Esther’s second banquet when Haman loses his life as he previously had lost his honour. Weiland describes three complications in the book of Esther:17 the conflict between Vashti and Ahasuerus; the argument between Haman and Mordecai and the quarrel between Haman and the Jews. These three clashes are linked with each other and have violence as their dominant theme. Profiting from Weiland’s insights, Vialle develops the structure we have decided to adopt because in our view it accounts accurately for the developments in the plot.18 Her structure follows the quinary model with an exposition, a complication, a transforming action or turning point, a denouement and a final situation. The peculiarity of Esther is that, except for the exposition and the final situation, there is a doubling in each of the other parts of the plot.19 Vialle’s general structure can be represented in the following table.20 We provide this chart for clarity sake even though the narrative as it stands now cannot be divided apart.

16  Cf. S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 122–123. 17  Cf. F.S. Weiland, “Plot Structure in the Book of Esther”, 279–286. For a full discussion of Weiland’s view, chapter 1 §3.3. 18  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 8–62. For a full discussion of Vialle’s views, see chapter 1 §3.3. 19  Other examples of stories with double climaxes and resolutions in the Bible are the story of Joseph’s reconciliation with his brothers (Gen 50) and the liberation of Israel from Egypt (Exod 12:41–42.53) among others; cf. J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 28. 20  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 10–12.



90

CHAPTER 3

Exposition (1:1–3:2a): Presentation of the context and all the main characters. Complication A (3:2b–5:14): Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman, resulting in a threat which is developed in two confrontations: a. 3:2b–6: first refusal to bow after Haman’s promotion. b. 5:9–14: second refusal to bow after Esther’s first banquet.

Complication B (3:6–5:14): Threat against the Jews planned by Haman and ratified by the king. Haman’s plan to have Mordecai hanged. All these result in: a. Focus on Esther and Mordecai. b. Esther’s appearance before the king and her invitation to the first banquet (5:4). c. An invitation to a second banquet (5:8).

Turning point A (6:1–7:10): Turning point B (8:3–17): a. Haman pays public homage to a. Esther’s request that the edict be Mordecai: he loses his honour revoked. b. Haman is hanged: he loses his life. b. Because her petition cannot be heeded, a new edict is put out. Denouement A (8:1–2): Mordecai’s elevation taking Haman’s place.

Denouement B (9:1–32): Massacre of the enemies of the Jews and institution of Purim.

Final situation (10:1–3): Mordecai is second in command in the kingdom; a levy is placed upon the peoples of the empire and the Jews enjoy prosperity.

1.2 The Narrator’s Telling and Showing The book of Esther starts with a ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬, just as other narratives in the Hebrew Scriptures, being a book (Ru 1:1) or sections from a story (Gen 14:1; Isa 7:1; Jer 3:1). This first ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬indicates a macro-structure21 and is followed by the 21  A. Niccacci, “Organizzazione canonica della Bibbia ebraica”, 20. Niccacci discusses briefly the position of Esther in the canon and the possibility of this ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬as a sign of conjunction

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

91

temporal framework (“in the days of Ahasuerus”) and the geographical situation both in the empire (“Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia, over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces”) and in the citadel of Susa (“he sat upon the throne of his kingdom in the citadel of Susa”). This background information is expressed by a series of nominal clauses and other sentences with the presence of participles, infinitive constructs and verbs in the qatal form.22 The first action in the narrative is Vashti’s refusal to come to the presence of Ahasuerus, a decision which provokes him to anger (1:12a ‫[ וַ ּיִ ְקצֹף‬. . .] ‫וַ ְּת ָמ ֵאן‬ “and she refuses [. . .] and he became angry”).23 This passion is explained in the second part of the verse by the use of a waw explicativum24 and a x-qatal form of the verb (1:12b ‫“ וְ ֲח ָמתֹו ָּב ֲע ָרה בֹו‬that is, his fury burnt within him”).25 The corresponding action expressing the end of the king’s fury is also proposed in the background (2:1 “when the king’s anger subsided”) and should be considered preceding the next recounted action (2:1 ‫י־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫אמרּו נַ ֲע ֵר‬ ְ ֹ ‫“ וַ ּי‬and the king’s attendants said”).26 Given the relevant position of ‫ וַ ּיִ ְקצֹף‬in chapter 1, the reader should be alert to the importance of anger in the whole account. The feeling of with what came before, the books of Chronicles: “È difficile affermare con certezza a quale contesto precedente si aggancino i due passi citati [Ru 1,1 and Esth 1,1], dato l’ordine fluido di questa parte del canone. Ad ogni modo, è significativo che nella Bibbia greca Rut segua Giudici. Quanto poi all’inizio di Ester, esso nomina l’epoca di Serse come Esd 4,6. Ora l’ordine più antico, di tradizione palestinese, aveva la sequenza Esdra-Neemia-Ester, prima che quest’ultimo libro fosse collocato fra i Rotoli per motivi liturgici”. 22  A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, § 9: “Narrative develops by means of a chain of WAYYIQTOLs. When this chain is interrupted (that is, when the verb form is udes which is not a WAYYIQTOL), it shows that the writer wishes to change the level of information from narrating events to his commentary on those same events”. This distinction explains the terminology “main line of narration” or “foreground” and “secondary line of narration” or “background”. In the background the author sets his comments or the explanation of what is happening in the main line of narration. 23  Our choice is based on a syntactical analysis of this passage, cf. A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, § 8–9. There are though contrasting opinions, for instance, according to Ska, 1:10 marks the beginning of the action (J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 25). A. Berlin, on the other hand, claims that the action begins at verse 3 with the presence of the first verb, ‫( ָע ָׂשה‬A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 104; BHQ 136*). 24   G K §154a. See also 2:21; 4:16. For other examples see D.W. Barker, “Further Examples”, 135–136. 25  It is worth noting that the LXX changes the formulation and reports two different passions: ϵ̓λυπήθη ὁ βασιλϵὺ καί ὠργίσθὴ . (“the king was grieved and became angry”). The king is thus presented in a more favourable light. 26  Grant calls this example of rage a case of spousal anger when the marital authority is disregarded, cf. D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 64.

92

CHAPTER 3

anger is set in the main story line while the action resulting in this outburst of rage is in the background as a qatal. The verb ‫ קצף‬appears again in the story of Bigthan and Teresh (2:21) as the background information explaining the reasons for their planned violent action as narrated in the main narrative line (2:22 ‫ֹלח יָ ד ַּב ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫“ וַ ַיְב ְקׁשּו ִל ְׁש‬and they plotted to assassinate the king”). Subsequently, and still in the main narrative line, the execution of both conspirators is succinctly related (2:23 ‫וַ ּיִ ָּתלּו‬ ‫ל־עץ‬ ֵ ‫יהם ַע‬ ֶ ֵ‫“ ְׁשנ‬and the two of them were hanged upon the gallows”). In this miniaccount, therefore, the actions are in the primary line of narration whereas the feelings appear in the background. When Haman sees that Mordecai does not bow to him he gets angry (3:5 ‫“ וַ ּיִ ָּמ ֵלא ָה ָמן ֵח ָמה‬and Haman was filled with anger”), a reaction which appears in the foreground. Similarly, in 5:9 the Agagite is enraged because he notices that Mordecai does not revere him (‫ל־מ ְר ֳּד ַכי ֵח ָמה‬ ָ ‫“ וַ ּיִ ָּמ ֵלא ָה ָמן ַע‬and Haman was filled with anger against Mordecai”). In both cases, the verb is part of a wayyiqtol chain putting this motion in the main line of narration while the causes of this passion are set in the background by a series of participles in chapter 3 (‫ּומ ְׁש ַּת ֲחוֶ ה‬ ִ ‫ ּכ ֵֹר ַע‬. . . ‫י־אין‬ ֵ ‫“ ִּכ‬Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance to him”, 3:5) and an infinitive construct in chapter 5 (‫“ וְ ִכ ְראֹות‬when Haman saw”, 5:9). The next subject of anger is Ahasuerus who, after Esther has unmasked Haman’s plan, is described as being angry in the secondary line of action. This is expressed by an x-qatal (7:7 ‫“ וְ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָקם ַּב ֲח ָמתֹו‬while the king stood up in his anger”). After some advice, he orders the Agagite to be hanged. The command is put into action and the execution happens in the main line of narration (7:10 ‫ל־ה ֵ ֖עץ‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָמן ַע‬ ָ ‫“ וַ ּיִ ְתלּו ֶא‬and they hanged Haman upon the gallows”). As a consequence of this act the narrator explains in the background that the king’s anger ceases (7:10 ‫“ וַ ֲח ַ ֥מת ַה ֶ ּ֖מ ֶלְך ָׁש ָ ֽכ ָכה‬and the king’s anger abated”).27 The emphasis, therefore, is on the action whereas rage fades into the background. This description contrasts with what is related in 1:12 in which wrath is part of the main wayyiqtol chain while Vashti’s deposition fades into the background. Thus, towards the end of the story, anger becomes a secondary feature and action acquires a prominent role. This idea is corroborated by the description of the violent acts of the Jews against their enemies in chapter 9. The account starts with some previous information preparing for the first wayyiqtol marking the beginning of the action in this chapter (9:5 ‫)וַ ּיַ ּכּו‬. The verb expressing violence is immediately explained with a series of waw-x-qatal describing what the Jews did in Susa (9:6 “while in 27  Thus the pattern proposed in 1:12 is the first example of a style repeated elsewhere in the book of Esther (3:5; 5:9; 7:7.10), cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 9.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

93

the citadel of Susa the Jews slew and destroyed [‫הּודים וְ ַא ֵּבד ָה ְרגּו‬ ִ ְ‫ ] ַהּי‬five hundred men” and 9:10 “the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews they killed [‫)”] ָה ָרגּו‬. After this first day of fighting, the king orders the hanging of Haman’s children and a second day of killing in Susa. Both actions are described in the background (9:14 “and Haman’s ten children we have hanged [‫ ;)”] ָּתלּו‬while the second day of retaliation, which is the Meghillah’s last violent action, is set in contrast with killing of Haman’s family (9:15 “and they slaughtered [‫ ]וְ ּיַ ַה ְרגּו‬in Susa three hundred men”).28 Detailed information of this second day of revenge is given as a background information explaining that the reason for such action was the defence of one’s life (“now the other Jews who were in the king’s provinces also gathered to defend their lives and got relief from their enemies [‫נֹוח ֵמא ֵֹיְב ֶיהם‬ ַ ְ‫)”]וְ ָעמֹד ַעל־נַ ְפ ָׁשם ו‬, an action which hides God’s intervention.29 1.3 The Characters’ Dialogue At different points in the Meghillah several speeches are reported.30 We will study those dealing with violence as they appear in the account. The first mention of violence in speech appears after Vashti’s refusal to heed the monarch’s request. Memuchan speaks to Ahasuerus (1:16–20) and his discourse is structured as follows: a premise “not only against the king” (16b) and two subordinate clauses introduced by ‫ ִּכי‬explaining the premise: “(1) also to all the princes and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus [. . .] (2) For this deed of the queen will be made known to all women . . .” (16c–17). This explanation is followed by the consequences of leaving the queen’s behaviour unpunished: “This very day the ladies of Persia and Media who have heard about the queen’s behaviour . . .” (1:18) and a suggestion “If it please the king, let a royal order go forth from him [. . .] and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes”. One of the most dangerous consequences of Vashti’s behaviour in the kingdom would be contempt on the part of women and their husbands’ anger as a result (1:18 ‫) ִּבּזָ יֹון וָ ָק ֶצף‬.31 In chapter 3 Haman enters in dialogue with the king for the first time when he asks for a decree to destroy the Jews (3:9 ‫“ יִ ָּכ ֵתב ְל ַא ְּב ָדם‬let it be written to destroy”). This petition is set in the main thread of the conversation 28  This phenomenon is similar to Gen 1:5: “God called (‫ )וּיִ ְק ָרא‬the light Day, while the darkness he called (‫ ) ָק ָרא‬Night”. 29  See chapter 2 §1.3.2 above for discussion. 30  J.-P. Sonnet, “L’analyse narrative”, 75: “La représentation des dialogues est la technique la plus significative (et la plus illustrée) de l’option “scénique” de la narration biblique”. 31  D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 282.

94

CHAPTER 3

after some background information expressed by two nominal sentences (3:8 ‫] ֵאינָ ם‬. . .[ ‫“ יֶ ְׁשנֹו‬there is [. . .] they do not”). The request is therefore given prime importance in the structure of the discourse.32 The speeches between Mordecai and Esther are recorded in chapter 4 in which Mordecai recalls the threat of violence in the future by using a conditional sentence: “For if you keep silence at such a time as this . . . (‫ם־ה ֲח ֵרׁש ַּת־‬ ַ ‫ִּכי ִא‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ית־א ִביְך ּת‬ ָ ‫ּוב‬ ֵ ‫)וְ ַא ְּת‬.33 ‫יׁשי‬ ִ ‫[ ) ֲח ִר‬. . .] you and your father’s house will perish” (4:14 ‫אבדּו‬ Esther takes up Mordecai’s words and expresses with a conditional sentence the courageous trust in her salvation and subsequently the salvation of all her people (4:16 ‫“ וְ ַכ ֲא ֶׁשר ָא ַ ֖ב ְד ִּתי ָא ָ ֽב ְד ִּתי‬if I perish I perish”).34 Haman’s conversations are again reported in chapter 5. At this point he had returned home angry with Mordecai and speaks to his wife and his friends. Zeresh advises her husband to kill the Jew with the king’s consent. This suggestion is expressed by a yiqtol with a volitive sense (‫ׂשּו־עץ‬ ֵ ‫“ יַ ֲע‬let us make a gallows”) followed by a construction of an imperative and a weyiqtol expressing intention (5:14 ‫“ ֱאמֹר ַל ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ְיִת ֤לּו‬tell the king to hang”).35 This order comes in the main line of the discourse underlining its importance. Chapter 7 describes Esther’s second banquet at which the queen explains to Ahasuerus by means of a subordinate clause the end that had been planned against the Jews (7:4 “because [‫ ] ִּכי‬I and my people have been sold to be destroyed, to be killed and to be annihilated”). After asking more questions and the couch-scene, the king gives an order in the jussive (7:9 ‫“ ְּת ֻלהּו ָע ָליו‬let him be hanged upon it”) and the order is immediately executed (7:10 ‫ת־ה ָמן‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיִ ְתלּו ֶא‬ ‫ל־ה ֵעץ‬ ָ ‫“ ַע‬and they hanged Haman upon the gallows”). An imperative in the discourse is thus transformed into a wayyiqtol in the narrative. A further example of the transformation in the verbal system is attested in a later dialogue when the king tells Esther and Mordecai: “Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged on the gallows (‫ל־ה ֵעץ‬ ָ ‫( ”)וְ אֹתֹו ָּתלּו ַע‬8:7). The change in direct speech is from wayyiqtol to qatal in second position.36 In both 32  A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, § 51: “The foreground can benoted by the jussive YIQTOL and the other volational forms (imperative, cohortative) and by the indicative x-YIQTOL (55), (x-)QATAL (22–23) and simple noun clauses; the background can be indicated by simple noun clauses, usually preceded by WAW (compemporaneity), WAWx-QATAL (anteriority); recovered information is indicated by QATAL (preceded by ‫כי‬, ‫ אׁשר‬etc.), anticipated information by indicative YIQTOL, various kinds of final clauses (cf. 3). 33  A waw of apodosis, JM § 176a. 34  For discussion on the meaning of this expression, see chapter 2 §3.5.2. 35  A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, § 61. 36  Cf. A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, §§ 22–25 for more examples of this phenomenon.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

95

cases, the emphasis is on Haman’s death as the prime position of the direct object in the speech highlights. The final dialogue of our book appears in chapter 9 after the description of the killings in Susa. In the first instance the narrator sets this account in the background through an x-qatal construction (9:6–10: “In Susa the capital itself the Jews slew (‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫ׁשּוׁשן ַה ִּב ָירה ָה ְרגּו ַהּי‬ ַ ‫ּוב‬ ְ ) and destroyed five hundred men, and also slew Parshandatha and Dalphon and Aspatha and Poratha and Adalia and Aridatha and Parmashta and Arisai and Aridai and Vaizatha, the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews”). The king retells these events changing slightly the order and the content when speaking to Esther: “And the king said to queen Esther, ‘In the citadel of Susa the Jews have slain (‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫ׁשּוׁשן ַה ִּב ָירה ָה ְרגּו ַהּי‬ ַ ‫ ) ְּב‬five hundred men and also the ten sons of Haman’ ” (9:12a). These accounts differ in two ways: first, the names of Haman’s sons are not repeated in the king’s speech and second Haman is not mentioned by his epithet. In our view the reasons for these changes are the following: first, the report economises words in order to run more smoothly and second, the contrast shows that the king’s view is not the same as the narrator’s. The author retells this event and reduces the credibility of the story because he puts the spotlight on the king who seems to rejoice in the death of his subjects making the reader wonder whether or not the events happened.37 Moreover this retelling prefaces Esther’s request for a second day of battle to complete the revenge already started. 1.4 Legal Documents The Meghillah underscores the importance of documents38 by the preeminence given to writing. This is expressed by the vocabulary: ‫“( כתב‬to write”) as a verb (1:19; 2:23; 3:9.12 [x2]; 6:2; 8:5 [x2].8 [x2]. 9.10; 9:20.23.29.32) and as a noun (1:22; 3:12.14; 4:8; 8:8.9 [x2]; 10.13; 9:27),39 as well as some other terms such as ‫“ ספר‬book” (1:22; 2:23; 3:12f; 6:1; 8:5, 9f; 9:20, 25, 30, 32; 10:2) and ‫“ אגרת‬letter or letter missive” (9:26.29). Decrees deserve our attention because they contain the vocabulary of violence studied in the previous chapter. Clear examples can be found in Haman’s decree against the Jews (3:12–13); in the record of the execution of Bigthan and Teresh (2:23; cf. 6:2); in the letter which allowed the self-defence of the

37  J. Licht, Storytelling, 63. 38  A. Berlin, Esther, 47. 39  Cf. R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 137–138.

96

CHAPTER 3

Jews (8:11–13)40 and in the description of Purim as a celebration of Jewish deliverance (9:30–32). Therefore, in the book of Esther “reality tends towards inscripturation”.41 The account, however, does not stop at a written level because there is an exact correspondence between the king’s decrees and their enactment (8:11; 9:16). In this way, record keeping takes an important role in our story to the point that “writing precedes the unsheathing of the sword, and so to write is to have power”.42 Further, recording and reading have the intention of provoking a reaction both in the characters of the book and in its readership. For example Mordecai’s letters to Esther make her act on behalf of her people and the proclamation of the Chronicles of Persia push the king to reward Mordecai. In a similar way the reading of the Meghillah produces in the Jews trust in God because they discern the divine intervention for their salvation. Further the command to read the Meghillah once a year affirms confidence in God who is faithful to his promises. 1.5 Summary The Scroll begins with a long background description serving as the backdrop for the actions. From the outset, the narrative of Esther is carried by a series of wayyiqtol which are interrupted at different points either to insert dialogues and decrees or to give background information or make a comment on what has happened. From a narrative point of view, the theme of violence is important since it appears in all the different types of speech of the Meghillah: narrative, speeches and legal documents. There is also a shift as the story progresses from feelings to actions flowing ultimately into consequences. When the vocabulary of violence appears in the secondary position it usually comments on the main action. In addition the Meghillah attests the pattern of command-realisation in the relation between the orders, either written or oral and the narrative.

40  According to Gordis this decree is a quotation of that of Haman, cf. R. Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative”, 49–53. On the other hand, Miekel Bal considered that “these letters are instances of mirroring as narrative plot elements, not mirroring as texts” (M. Bal, “Lots of Writing”, 226). 41  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Book, 22. 42  R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 139.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

97

2 Plot A story is the account of several events more or less related to each other and arranged according to a plot.43 Authors communicate their message through different types of story line, that is, by ordering events under the cause-effect laws within a temporal framework. In the case of Esther, “the author’s main interest is obviously the creation of a deliciously tangled plot from the twists and turns of court intrigue”.44 Our aim is to unravel this plot and try to discover how the author intended to use violence when he wrote the Scroll. 2.1 Nature of the Plot: Revelation or Resolution? Among the devices employed by authors to keep readers’ attention, the description of change is one of the most efficient. Transformation happens in three different spheres: a change of values, a change of knowledge and a change of situation.45 In our view, the Meghillah presents examples of all three changes as we will illustrate subsequently.46 Perhaps the least prevalent is the change of values which refers to a transformation in the main characters. Such permutation happens subtly in our book. Esther, for example, develops from being dependant on Mordecai to giving him orders whereas the Jew and the king are transformed from passivity to activity. The other changes will now be studied in more depth because depending the weight given to each of them, we will be able to decide whether the Meghillah presents a plot of revelation or resolution. 2.1.1 Plot of Revelation Our author underlines the disclosure of knowledge and the importance of revelation in the plot.47 He chooses to give the reader all the information about the characters’ identity and motifs by way of their introduction, their epithets and, in the case of Haman, by having access to his innermost thoughts. Nonetheless, the other characters of the account come to know the true 43  Cf. S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93–140; J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 17–38; D. Marguerat – Y. Bourquin, La Bible se raconte, 53–74. 44  J. Licht, Storytelling, 128. 45   J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 19. 46  Cf. F.S. Weiland, “Plot Structure in the Book of Esther”, 279–280. 47  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 13: “. . . la présence du Rouleau au sein du corpus biblique pousse le lecteur à aller plus loin dans l’interprétation, afin de discerner une dynamique probable de révélation derrière l’intrigue de résolution”.

98

CHAPTER 3

identity of the rest of the cast gradually with the result that, only by the end of the Meghillah, everyone knows everything of all the dramatis personae.48 From the start the reader knows that Mordecai and Esther are Jews (cf 2:5–7) and that Haman is a descendant from Amalek (3:1).49 However, no one at the king’s court knows about Esther’s origins (cf. 2:10.20)50 neither did Mordecai’s colleagues at the king’s gate know his real identity until he reveals it to them (3:4). On their part, these officials at the king’s gate become the source from which Haman obtains his knowledge (3:4)51 thus beginning complication A. Mordecai makes his identity known when he decides to mourn the fate of all the Jews at the city gate, making both a gesture of solidarity and also a public profession of faith (4:1–3). Esther follows her cousin’s behaviour when she decides to fast with her people before meeting the king (4:16–17), joining her fate to that of her people and revealing her kinship to those close to her. In the same chapter, Esther passes from a situation of ignorance to one of knowledge once she is told about the threats of violence against the Jews. Such knowledge sets her on the way to resolve the complication. Complication A (3:2b–5:14) is the result of Mordecai’s self-revelation as a Jew. This complication gets resolved by a double revelation at turning point A: on the one hand, the revelation of Esther’s true kinship (7:3–4) and on the other, the exposure of who the enemy is (7:6). This is interrupted by the king’s question (7:5) which heighlights the tension and allows Esther to give her final blow. These disclosures are followed by the further revelation of Mordecai’s relation to Esther (8:2) which brings about denouement A of our story. In all this uncovering the character who knows the least is the king. He seems to be unaware of what is happening in his kingdom or even in his own household. As far as revealing crucial information for the resolution of the difficulties and the development of violence, the character who apprehends the 48  A. Siquans, “Die Rolle Esters im Esterbuch”, 80. 49   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 42. 50  There is no clear view why Esther’s identity should remain unknown. According to some, anti-Semitism is the cause of such choice (L.B. Paton, Esther, 167–168; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 32; D.J.A. Clines, Esther, 368). Whether this is the case or not, it cannot be the only reason because there are people in Susa sympathising with the Jews (3:15). Jacobs offers an original explanation: Mordecai who had revealed his identity as a Jew (4:4), did not want Esther to associate with the Jewish cause because she might attract wrath against all her people, following the example of what had happened with Vashti and all the women. In Mordecai’s case, he thinks that by not being in the centre of the action, his disclosure would not affect anyone else (cf. J. Jacobs, “Characterizing Esther”, 293, n. 27). 51  Through this revelation, Mordecai is identified with Vashti as a rebellious individual, cf. T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 55.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

99

most is Mordecai. For example, once Vashti is deposed and the beauty contest begins, Mordecai, perceiving the importance of this position, takes his cousin (2:8) and continues to be interested in her life (2:11). He is the only person who has information about the assassination plot against Ahasuerus and makes it known to him by means of Esther (2:22–23). Again Mordecai learns of Haman’s edict (4:1) and communicates it to Esther.52 In many of these instances in which there is a change from ignorance to knowledge resulting in a situation of violence, Mordecai is a key figure. Therefore the Jew controls most of the valuable knowledge in the Meghillah. He imparts it to the Persians when he thinks it necessary until he reveals totally his identity and ethnicity with the result of being publically acknowledged by all (10:3). 2.1.2 Plot of Resolution The Scroll opens with Vashti’s refusal to come into the king’s presence causing him to get angry and to discharge his anger on her, thus solving a first crisis and giving an example of how a plot of resolution works.53 Weiland, moreover, describes two further changes of situation in our book: first Haman’s conflict with Mordecai, and second Haman’s conflict with the Jewish people. Complication B (3:6–5:14) presents the clash between Haman and Mordecai and the subsequent development into the struggle between Haman and the Jews. The narrator, however, decides to conceal from the reader the reason why Haman makes such extrapolation so the reader does not know what shape the solution will take. Tension is further inflamed by Mordecai’s second refusal to bow before Haman, who subsequently accepts his wife’s advice and decides to kill Mordecai. Therefore the main thrust of this complication seems to be the ever growing-threat of death for the Jews. The corresponding turning point B (8:3–17) develops under the shadow of the menace against the Jewish people but finishes with the decree of selfdefence for the Jews. The conclusion of the contention is recounted in chapter 9 which describes the clearest example of violence in the whole Meghillah.

52   N.W. Duran, Having Men for Dinner, 83–84: “[Mordecai] is the ‘what’ of diaspora survival; he represents what ought to be honored by survival, what ought to survive. Esther is the ‘how’. She has little contact with the Jewish traditions or people whom she is trying to preserve, but she is the means by which they are preserved”. 53  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 13. J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 18: “In a ‘plot of resolution’ the main question is ‘What will happen?’ In this very common and traditional kind of plot, time, evolution, and order of events are essential and development is an ‘unraveling’ ”.

100

CHAPTER 3

2.1.3 Our Proposal In our view the double plot means also a duality in the kinds of plot. In general we could describe plot A as a plot of revelation, whereas plot B is a plot of resolution. However, this division is not so straightforward. The revelation contributes to the resolution of the conflicts while as quarrels appear, the characters are obliged to reveal both their identity and some of the decisive information for the final resolution of the struggles. In general, the plot of resolution conceals the action of God in the reversals and coincidences54 even though deliverance is only possible through human agents and their qualities, such as Mordecai’s loyalty to his people and Esther’s shrewdness.55 Thus the combination of this tandem uncovers what needs to be known with the resulting salvation of the Jews.56 Notwithstanding this characteristic, the final result in the book of Esther is the product of both human and divine actions expressed in a plot which is at the same time revelatory but which also implies resolution.57 2.2 Role of Violence in the Plot Biblical narrative moves within two coordinates: the coexistence of human and divine spheres and the structures of conflict.58 The Scroll is a clear example of the latter since much of the development of its plot owes to the surging of anger and clashes between people. 2.2.1 Exposition The exposition (1:1–3:2a) gives the interpretative clues and the pattern of behaviour repeated in the Meghillah.59 Some of those models are the progression of a Jew; the passage from the particular to the general; the influence of

54   J.A. Loader, “Esther”, 419; cf. Y. Amit, “The Dual Causality Principle”, 392–394. 55  Cf. F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 334–335. 56  On the role of silence and withdrawal from speaking see P. Abadie, La reine masquée, 164. 57  For other examples of a combined plot, see J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 27–28. Also Sternberg: “As a matter of art and doctrine alike, the Bible simply establishes a different relation between the external (“happiness to unhappiness” or the reverse) and the internal (ignorance to knowledge) movement of the plot, whereby the former enjoys no poetic priority over the latter and the distinction itself is scarcely recognized at all” (M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 176–177). 58  Cf. M. Sternberg, “The Grand Chronology”, 96–98. 59  According to us the hermeneutical key to the whole book is found in the exposition (1:1– 3:1a) and not only in chapter 1 as some authors postulate, cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 33; D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 361; T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 47.78–79.101.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

101

advisors; the importance of power;60 the importance of irony61 and the dynamics of violence. We will consider the latter and review how the author places it in the overall structure. The first action of this narrative is queen Vashti’s refusal to come into the presence of the king when she is summoned (1:12 ‫ )וַ ְּת ָמ ֵאן‬and the subsequent enragement of Ahasuerus (‫)וּיִ ְקצֹף ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְמאֹד‬.62 The refusal is unexplained63 and starts the account from a syntactic point of view and literary stand by providing a first wayyiqtol64 and the first complication. The next stage of the exposition is Memuchan’s speech (1:16–20) after the king’s question (1:15). The eunuch expresses the view that a rebellious example such as Vashti’s can be imitated and hence needs to be curtailed by a decree before it becomes widespread. This pattern of decreed violence against a group of people because of the rebellion of one of its members is repeated later.65 Similarly, a decree coming from the king as the result of advice from his counsellor is also replicated later. The exposition could have finished at the end of chapter 1, however, the plot develops by mentioning the king’s anger. This is the feature linking the beginning of the story with the rest of the plot. Thus the author explains how anger is abated and the consequences when this appeasement does not occur. In this case the king’s anger subsides with the disappearance of the person who caused it (2:1). On the other hand, when the person who incited wrath does not disappear the outcome is otherwise. Bigthan and Teresh are angry with the king and plan to kill him, however, they are caught red-handed and subsequently punished (2:21–23). Their death illustrates that self-destruction is the consequence of wrath which is not dealt with and that execution by hanging is a penalty for traitors.

60  Cf. C. Vialle, “Le problématique du pouvoir”, 570–572. 61  A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 50: “The Vashti episode sets up the carnivalesque mood of the whole story”. 62  E. Segal, “Human Anger”, 248: “The plot is set into motion by Ahasuerus’ incensed removal of the disobedient Vashti, and reaches its denouement in the execution of the villainous Haman in 7:9: ‘the king’s rage abated’ ”. 63  For suggestions of the possible reasons for Vashti’s refusal see E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 185–186. 64  A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, § 8: “Typically, ‘narrative’ uses a WAYYIQTOL in first position”, see also §§ 9–13. 65  In chapter 1 all the women of the empire are punished because of Vashti whereas in chapter 3 all the Jews are threatened with annihilation because of Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman, cf. K. Butting, “Esther: A New Interpretation”, 244.

102

CHAPTER 3

Lastly, the different ethnic groups to which the protagonists belong are mentioned. Mordecai and Esther are Jews whereas Haman is an Agagite. These racial differences are the seeds of possible conflict which will flower as a fullgrown persecution of all the Jews. 2.2.2 Complication Complication A (3:2b–5:14) repeats the pattern described in the exposition. Mordecai refuses to bow down to Haman, disobeying a royal decree. No reason is given for this refusal which fills Haman with anger and starts a movement from the particular to the general. Therefore, even though it is only a person who transgresses a commandment, all those people associated with him are punished (3:2–9). This punishment takes the form of a decree planned by Haman and ratified by the king. At a second stage, the pattern is repeated on another occasion, when Haman sees that Mordecai does not bow to him, he goes home and gathers his wife and friends (5:9–14). At this point, Haman is not the counsellor but the one who needs guidance. The suggestion given by his wife is to rid himself of Mordecai. In order to do so, Haman should seek the approval of the king by accusing the Jew of treason. Then he should suggest having him hanged on the gallows as the punishment reserved for traitors. Complication B (3:6–5:14) describes Haman’s first plan and reports the words of the decree with which the vizier’s strategy should be put into practice (3:12–15a). Life under this Damoclean sword is summed up in 3:15b: “the citadel of Susa was perplexed” and developed in 4:1 by the description of Mordecai’s behaviour (“Mordecai rent his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, wailing with a loud and bitter cry”). He is taken as a paradigm of the feelings the Jews are going through while his conduct reflects the reactions produced by such feelings. The behaviour in the provinces is similar (4:3) leaving the reader with a feeling of unresolved confusion and anxiety. 2.2.3 Turning Point Turning point A (6:1–7:10) is framed by an inclusio of the verb ‫“ תלה‬to hang” (6:4; 7:9.10) which is also implicitly called to mind by the mention of Bigthan and Teresh who plotted against the king’s life (6:2) and were hanged as a result. Another element that recurs in this section is the idea of humiliation/ refusal which produces mourning in Haman (6:12) and anger in the king (7:7). The reader is aware of the dynamics of this latter passion. The pattern given in the exposition is re-enacted when the cause of anger, Haman, is killed as a traitor and the king’s wrath recedes. Haman’s end is proleptically announced by his advisers (6:13) who foretell the impending resolution to complication A.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

103

Turning point B (8:3–17) begins with Esther begging Ahasuerus to withdraw Haman’s edict and the king’s answer that a royal decree cannot be remitted (8:8). As an alternative solution, the king gives Mordecai permission to write another edict permitting the Jews to take revenge on their enemies (8:13). This decree contains a quotation from Haman’s: “those who might attack them, children and women” (8:11, cf. 3:13)66 making the audience wonder how the two statutes would be put into practice. The consequences of Mordecai’s decree are described as happiness on the one hand and fear on the other. The Jews experience a sigh of relief and celebrate this first stage of their deliverance whereas the Persians are afraid and become sympathetic (8:17 ‫ ) ִמ ְתיַ ֲה ִדים‬towards the Jews.67 2.2.4 Denouement Denouement A (8:1–2) exposes the result of the power vacuum after Haman’s death and is the only section of the book in which violence, either as a feeling or as an action, does not appear explicitly. Even so, in our view, violence is present implicitly. The mention of Haman as “enemy of the Jews” and the transferral of his property to Mordecai makes the reader aware that a change has taken place as the result of turning point A. The solution to Complication A is a good omen and creates the expectation that the solution to Complication B is not far away. The unravelling of the events produces denouement B (9:1–32) which becomes the most violent section of the Meghillah. It can be divided into two units: the annihilation of the enemies of the Jews (9:1–19) and the institution of Purim (9:20–32). The chapter begins with a summary (9:1) developed subsequently as the fulfilment of the command previously given (9:5–10). In this way it recounts in a chronicle-like style the enactment of the decree which marked turning point B. Like other instances in the Bible, the narrator does not give details of the battle or conflict but only the end result of what happened. Ahasuerus and Esther enter into a dialogue during which the queen makes a double request (9:13). She asks that Haman’s ten sons be hanged publically as a sign of further humiliation and that a second day of battle may be allowed. Consequently the Jews break into the institutionalised celebration of Purim (9:19), which commemorates not acts of violence but the joyful result in the change of fortunes and the relief which is attained by it (9:20–29). Violence resolves the crisis instigated at the beginning of the book and opens the door to a new situation which is the result of fighting and of the peripety described by the Meghillah. 66  Cf. R. Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative”, 49–53 (especially 52). 67  On the meaning of ‫ ִמ ְתיַ ֲה ִדים‬, chapter 2 note 21.

104

CHAPTER 3

2.2.5 Final Situation After the bloodbath of chapter 9, the situation becomes peaceful and calm. The king is accompanied by Mordecai who takes the place of the council of advisors68 and hence the story has a happy end. The establishment of a timeless period of peace succeeds the limited time of war and the Jewish people prosper in the foreign land under the leadership of a wise leader.69 We propose that the use of violence in the plot of Esther is the means to reach again a situation of prosperity and peace. Our account begins with a description of wealth and tranquillity which is disturbed by a bout of anger. Rage is repeated in the complication and partly in the turning point, even though violence begins properly speaking at the turning point and spills into the denouement. Therefore the plot of our book starts with peace which is disturbed by anger and leads to violence. Violence in its turn is transformed into peace again at a second instance. 3

Point of View

According to Adele Berlin, “the term ‘point of view’ is used rather broadly in literary criticism to designate the position or perspective from which a story is told”.70 The point of view71 entails a double association: between subject and object and between the observer and the apparent reality. In this way, there are three relationships developing in an account: between the narrator and the characters; between the narrator and the reader and between the reader and the characters.72 3.1 Narrator’s Point of View The book of Esther exposes the narrator’s point of view, even though at certain points, there is a change of focus. The modification of viewpoint is expressed 68   C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther, 229. 69   E.B. Gertel, “Divine and Human Anger”, 157: “It would follow from the Scroll’s preoccupation with anger that dover shalom describes the person freed from anger, whether anger of the burning, seething or smoldering kinds. On many levels, Megillat Ester is a call for human anger management and a statement of gratitude for a God who cares enough to become angry and control the Divine anger”. 70  A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 46. 71  Cf. A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 43–82; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 129–152; J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 65–81; D.F. Tolmie, Narratology, 29–38; J.-P. Sonnet, “À la croisée des mondes”, 75–100. 72  M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 130.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

105

by allowing the reader into a character’s inner thoughts (5:9; 6:6)73 or by confronting what the narrator has related with the same event seen through the eyes of someone else.74 For example, the narrator presents the reader with the Persian empire in all its splendour (1:1–10) and makes him or her see it through the eyes of those who are invited to the banquets (1:4.11, hifil of ‫)ראה‬. Esther’s beauty is not only described by the narrator (2:7) but is also corroborated by those who saw her and found her worthy of favour (2:9.15; 5:1–2). Lastly, the narrator enunciates that Esther implores mercy from Ahasuerus (8:3–4) and then reports the actual words used by the queen (8:5–6) provoking the king’s disclosure of his innermost thoughts, unknown to the reader previously (8:7). As far as violence is concerned, different perspectives can be found in the Meghillah. The narrator describes the processes of the king’s enragement and cooling off (1:12; 2:1; 7:7.10) whilst Memuchan, on behalf of his colleagues, expresses his point of view about the possible consequences of Vashti’s rebellion (1:16–20). The story of Bigthan and Teresh is told by the narrator using Mordecai as the means of reporting the affair to the king (2:21–23). Moreover, the narrator writes of the commotion produced by the royal decree (3:15), what Mordecai’s reaction is (4:1–3) and how his behaviour disturbed Esther (4:4). Haman’s destruction plan is seen from Esther’s point of view when she speaks to the king at her second banquet (7:3–4) while her description of Haman is an example of how she speaks on behalf of her people (7:5) following Mordecai’s request (4:14). The return of the king from the garden produces a change in point of view (7:7) and makes the reader see the scene through the monarch’s eyes.75 This swift change of prespective is used to enhance the irony of the event because while the reader knows the real intentions of each character, they know nothing of each other’s motives. This lack of knowledge leads to confusion and results in Haman receiving the opposite outcome from the one he had previously envisaged.76

73   J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 67–68. The other way a narrator can change the focus is by using the particle ‫ ִהּנֵ ה‬. Such particle appears three times in the book of Esther (6:5; 7:9; 8:7), all of which in direct speech. In those instances ‫ ִהּנֵ ה‬links an event, either present or past with the actual moment of the discourse, cf. A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, § 67. 74  Cf. A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 73–74. 75  Cf. A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 63–64. 76  Cf. A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 53–54. There is another example of this interplay of points of view known only to the reader. In chapter 6, both Ahasuerus and Haman have Mordecai in mind but their intentions were very different. Whereas the king wanted to honour the Jew, the vizier desired his death. The reader finds it immensely ironic when Haman has to exalt and pay homage to Mordecai.

106

CHAPTER 3

Harbonah then points to the gibbet and focuses the reader again on Haman’s intentions which turn out to his disadvantage (7:8).77 The slaughter of chapter 9 is again another example in which different perspectives of the same event are presented. The narrator recounts what happens (9:1–11) providing an insight into the mind of the enemies of the Jews (9:1.3). Afterwards the king’s version of the same events is reported (9:12). The aftermath and the establishment of the Purim festival is also told from the point of view of the narrator (9:17–32) and of Esther and Mordecai. Their perspective, which is the people’s as well, appears in the words of the decrees in which the feelings harboured in the hearts of the Jews are described as “sorrow . . . mourning” (9:22). Finally the narrator presents a concluding situation of peace and harmony (10:1–3). 3.2 Characters’ Point of View It is worth noting that Mordecai’s problems and the trouble for the Jews start when Haman sees Mordecai’s behaviour at the king’s gate (3:3). His colleagues wanted to find out whether or not his reasons for disobeying the king’s command would stand (3:4).78 However, they did not foresee the consequences of their action because, by calling Haman’s attention to Mordecai’s conduct, they unwillingly became the instigators of the vizier’s anger (3:4) and subsequently of his desire to destroy all the Jews (3:6).79 Haman’s anger is similarly connected to perception when, coming out from Esther’s first banquet, he sees Mordecai who continues not paying him due respect. The Agagite is outraged, and as a consequence follows his wife’s advice developing the scheme to have Mordecai hung (5:9–14). Haman’s point of view has a further influence on the development of the plot. He convinces the king to act against the Jews by giving him his own description of the people: “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not for the king’s profit to tolerate them” (3:8). The king does 77  The author expresses now a delicate example of irony: “Through his plan to kill the Jews, Haman in effect causes his own death and the promotion of Mordecai the Jew. This ironic course of events reflects the view that there is justice in the world, that the wicked are punished and the righteous rewarded” (S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93). 78   F.W. Bush, Esther, 379–380. 79  On the role of the servants, Beal affirms: “It is possible that without their reports, there would have been no enragement” (T.K. Beal, Esther, 48). Beal likens this instance with the Vashti episode and the role the eunuchs take on reporting the affair to the king. However, in that instance everyone knew about the queen’s rebellion, whereas here Haman seems to be oblivious to Mordecai’s behaviour till the servants bring it to his attention.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

107

not verify this information but taking it as truth adopts it as his perspective. The reader, though, knows that, because one Jew disobeyed one decree, all are punished. However this subjective point of view proves incorrect because the Jews are obedient servants of the king. On the other hand the disposition towards the king changes as the story advances. At the beginning of the account he has no opinion of his own and accepts what Haman tells him. Once the vizier is no longer in the scene, the monarch’s true character seems to surface and his own point of view appears. He favours the Jews and points his benevolent actions to Esther and Mordecai (8:7), whereas, when reporting the events of Susa, he does not condemn them but instead seems to align his views with those of the Jews (9:12). Therefore there are two rationales behind these changing points of view. First of all, the different viewpoints reported in the story are employed by the narrator to make the reader experience the same feelings of anguish, relief and anger as the protagonists of the Meghillah. Second, the change of perspective enhances the comedic effects of the Meghillah on its readership. .

4 Characters Over thirty people are known by name in the Meghillah,80 even though some of them do not take an active part in the events recounted. Most of them bear a Persian name (Carkas, Zethar, Biztha among others),81 adding a local flavour to the account.82 Furthermore, the cast includes the crowds, such as those who attend the banquet in chapter 1 or the Persians both in Susa and the provinces of the empire in chapter 9. We will analyse the main characters of the book as they appear in the story whereas some of the secondary characters will be grouped together in order to complete our study. By main characters we mean those who are known by name and have a role in the story, namely, Ahasuerus, Vashti, Mordecai, Esther, Haman and the Jewish people.83 We will study them through the information given by the 80  For a comprehensive list of those characters, see C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 131. 81  Cf. J. Duchesne-Guillemin, “Les noms”, 105–108; H.S. Gehman, “Notes on the Persian Words”, 321–328; A.R. Millard, “The Persian Names”, 481–488. 82  G. Gerleman, Studien zu Esther, 331. 83  By frequency Ahasuerus is the most mentioned character (29 by name plus 194 times ‫ֶמ ֶלְך‬ referring to him); Mordecai (58 times); Esther 55 (plus 2 mentions of ‫ ַמ ְל ָּכה‬denoting her); Haman 54; Vashti 10 (plus 2 references to ‫ ַמ ְל ָּכה‬alluding to her).

108

CHAPTER 3

narrator, including the names/epithets,84 by what other characters say about them and what the character tells the reader.85 Some of the main characters in the Meghillah are meant to be compared as couplets:86 Vashti/Esther and Mordecai/Haman. Each of them relates to the other and helps his or her characterisation. Authors debate who is the most important character of the Meghillah but as Fox rightly says, “a book can have two central characters, equally important but significant in different ways”.87 However, he chooses Mordecai as the dominant figure because he is first to appear and last to be praised88 and the one who survives in the popular mind of the Jewish people (2 Macc 15:36). One of the peculiarities given to the characters is that each of them represents others. Hence Ahasuerus is image of the empire whilst Vashti of all those who refuse to obey royal authority. Mordecai represents all the Jews who are faithful to the empire while Esther’s life appears twice as symbolic of her people: first when she is graced and chosen by the king (2:17) and then when her life is spared (5:1–2). This characteristic is also proper of some of the minor characters, such as Harbonah who impersonates all those who, within the court, are supportive of the Jews. The Jewish leaders’ actions are also repeated by their people and so after Mordecai begins the mourning rites, the Jews follow suit (4:2–3) and upon Esther’s example they fast (4:17). In this way the dynamics described are set as eternal and could be reproduced in all ages, because each period in history has its own Haman, Esther and Mordecai. These characters change in the course of the Meghillah89 and even though there is a discussion among the theorists of narratology about whether character or plot should have the preference,90 in our view there is no opposition 84  J.-P. Sonnet, “L’analyse narrative”, 73; as opposed to Bar-Efrat for whom the epithets are not important, cf. S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 90. 85  Cf. S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 47–92. 86  Cf. C. Fortune, “Plot and Character”, 92–93. 87   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 196. 88   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 185. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 64: “Mordecaï est sans conteste un des personnages principaux du livre d’Esther”. 89  Against S. Talmon, “Wisdom in the Book of Esther”, 440. 90  Among those who highlight the importance of the characters, see J.L. Ska, Our Fathers have told us, 84: “The predominance of action and the lack of interest in the psychological processes of the characters are two of the main characteristics of Biblical narrative art [. . .] Briefly, in Biblical narratives, characters are most of the time at the service of the plot and seldom presented for themselves”. J. Asurmendi, “La construction d’Haman”, 431: “Les personnages ont l’air de marionnettes dirigées par une “main invisible” que le texte ne désigne pas. Ils sont au service exclusif de l’intrigue assez sophistiquée et subtile”.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

109

between them because plot and character are at the service of each other. In our book, the characters are subordinated to the main line of the plot, so that the flat stereotypical figures such as the king, predictably play out their roles in the relatively simple plot.91 4.1 Ahasuerus92 Ahasuerus “is usually dismissed as a tipsy lightweight, hovering in the background, whose main purpose is to evoke mirth and contempt [. . .] the so-called foolish drunkard”.93 This evaluation of the king, shared by some authors,94 is the result of a one-sided reading of the Book of Esther. In our opinion this judgement should be re-evaluated. Neither the narrator nor any of the other characters give an outward depiction of Ahasuerus. In this way there is no moral judgement on him and each reader is invited to make up his or her own assessment of the monarch. The reader does not know what Ahasuerus looked like nor does he or she know what the king wore. Indirectly we can picture that he must have been very sumptuous in his attire to fit the description of his palace (cf. 1:6–8) and the depiction of Mordecai’s royal garments: “Then Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal robes of blue and white, with a great golden crown and a mantle of fine linen and purple” (8:15a). On the other hand, we are introduced into the king’s inner world. It would seem that the only reason motivating his actions during the parties in chapter 1 is to “show; make see” his greatness to everyone (1:4.11). So he is presented as a megalomaniac who despite being in charge of an empire still needs the appreciation of everyone. Further, his states of mind transpire at different stages: he is angry (1:12; 7:7)95 and can love (2:17; cf. 5:2) to the point of promising half of his kingdom to Esther (5:3.7; 7:2; cf. 9:12). His love for the queen might be the 91  E. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther”, 231. 92   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 171–177; C.R. Dickson – P.J. Botha, “The Role and Portrayal of the King in Esther”, 156–173; F.W. Bush, Esther, 314–317; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 110–124; A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 61–64; Cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 74–76. 93   F.C. Hyman, “The Education”, 78. 94  The Meghillah is a satire of the witless king who makes a fool of himself (J.W. Whedbee, The Bible and the Comic Vision, 188) and provides a portrait of Ahasuerus as a lazy monarch and a bad king who did not look after the interests of his people (cf. C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther, 307; J.M. Sasson, “Esther”, 337; F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 315–316; C.M. Craig, Reading Esther, 144). 95  In the first instance, he is angry for four years, showing that he is someone who can hold resentment for a long time, cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 115.

110

CHAPTER 3

cause of why he is so disturbed when she tells him that her life is in danger (7:3–5). Additionally, the Vashti’s story provides another interesting portrayal of king Ahasuerus. After his anger is calmed, the king remembered the queen and what had been decreed against her (2:1 ‫)נִ גְ זַ ר‬. The verb “to remember” has connotations of compassion (Gen 8:1; 40:14; Lev 26:42.45) and could show that the king repented of his action,96 taken while being drunk and expressed in this text by a passive tense which indicates he accepted little blame for the matter.97 Moreover he is somehow a cynic who is out of touch with his people’s feelings and insensitive to their emotions (3:15a). His main characteristic is psychological weakness98 as shown by his dependence on the advice of other people and the physical appearance of women. Vashti is beautiful (1:11) and the ladies to be presented to the king should be young and beautiful (2:2ְ). Hence, there is no doubt that Esther would win the king’s favour since she was “beautiful and lovely” (2:7). From the point of view of decision making, Ahasuerus is portrayed as needing advice before he makes a choice and as a malleable person in the hands of his counsellors. The first words attributed to the king are a command which is not obeyed (1:10–12). Immediately, he asks for advice (1:14–15), beginning the trend of obeying someone else’s suggestions (Memuchan, 1:22; his servants, 2:4b; Haman, 3:10–12; Harbonah, 7:9–10). Moreover, the king’s attitude when decreeing the annihilation of all the Jews contrasts sharply with Haman’s, who had verified the truth in the accusation against Mordecai (3:4–5), before taking a decision. Ahasuerus never says no to his counsellors, thus abdicating de facto his responsibilities as head of state.99 Ahasuerus begins to change when he takes two decisions under the influence of anger: the deposition of Vashti and the execution of Haman. Ahasuerus is impulsive in his actions as shown in the chastisement of Haman (7:9) when the reaction time is less than in the previous episodes. Neither of these decisions is vindictive, but they would seem terribly arbitrary and entail some sort of violence working for the good of the Jews. Vashti’s deposition and exile as well as Haman’s hanging, result in the prosperity of Esther, who assumes the office of queen after Vashti and in the progression of Mordecai who becomes 96   D.E. Grant, “The Difference”, 420. 97   F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 367. 98  Irony and ridicule of the king could be interpreted as a way of surviving. Other examples of this phenomenon in the Scriptures are Pharaoh, Balak and Ehud among others, cf. A. Brenner, “Who’s afraid”, 42–51. 99  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 173; W.T. McBride, “Esther Passes”, 215.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

111

second in command (10:2; cf. 8:2). The royal decisions benefit also the Jews in general with the result that they save their lives and prosper under the leadership of Mordecai. Therefore all the king’s rulings taken in a state of wrath pave the way for the success of the Jews. Nonetheless, the king’s fundamental change happens once Haman is executed. The king passes from being obedient to other people’s counsels (1:22; 2:4; 3:10–12; 6:6) to taking charge of the affairs of the empire (8:8). After the Agagite’s death, the monarch is informed of what is happening in the kingdom (9:12a) and actively orders the course of events. When the decree of extermination of the Jews had been promulgated, Ahasuerus had consented to it without full knowledge of what was going to happen, whereas he takes a keen interest when the second day of fighting is decreed (9:14). The king on the other hand develops a cunning plan and makes use of Esther to execute it. When she comes into his presence after the massacre of the Persians, the king gives an account of the accurate death toll in Susa and gives permission to continue with the slaughter. He allows the Jews to kill not only their enemies but the king’s opponents. Haman had given signs he wanted to usurp the throne and thus Ahasuerus uses the Jews to eliminate the people of Haman’s party who were still in the empire and might plot against him.100 The final image is that of a benevolent king who allowed the Jews to prosper while imposing taxes on his subjects. Salvation is therefore possible for the Jews if they learn to use the despotic powers under which they live profiting at the same time from whatever position they may achieve for their own good.101 4.2 Vashti102 Vashti appears abruptly in the scene as “the queen” (1:9, ‫) ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬103 who had prepared a banquet for some women in a section of the palace belonging to the king. In this subtle way the narrator describes that the queen is not the real owner of her property but that, like everything else described until that point, her house belongs to Ahasuerus who had absolute power over everything.

100  Cf. J. Magonet, “The Liberal and the Lady”, 174. 101  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 177. 102  S. Nadar, “Genre, Power, Sexuality”, 113–130; C. Vialle, “L’ombre de la reine Vashti”, 517–525; R.L. Hubbard, “Vashti, Amestris and Esther 1,9”, 259–271; cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 235–238. 103   E.J. Greenstein prefers to translate ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬as “the king’s wife” in his own translation of the Meghillah, cf. E.J. Greenstein, “The Scroll of Esther. A New Translation”, 52–81.

112

CHAPTER 3

Vashti’s portrayal is furthered by her characterisation as an object to be paraded in front of the guests because she was beautiful (:‫טֹובת ַמ ְר ֶ ֖אה ִ ֽהיא‬ ֥ ַ 1:11).104 Vashti earns her importance by initiating the plot of the story105 when she refuses to come to the presence of the king.106 Her refusal makes her the main player of chapter 1 while the traces of her action can be discerned elsewhere in the Meghillah.107 Through the action, she provokes the king to anger (1:12) and is seen as a threat because her rebellion might send ripples of insurrection to the whole Empire (1:18). Hence she becomes the object of the first act of violence in the Meghillah108 and serves as the excuse for the approval of a law aimed at subjugating women (1:18–19.21). Even though her deposition109 is not a physical violence made against the queen, it amounts to her eradication from the story and from line of action. Nonetheless, in a crafty way, Vashti attains her desire not to come to Ahasuerus’s presence once the king’s edict decreeing that “Vashti is to come no more before king Ahasuerus” (1:19) is enacted. Moreover, queen Vashti does not vanish so easily from the story or from the king’s mind. She is mentioned three other times (2:1.4.17) and her name and audacity will be remember in aeternum by all those who read the chronicles of the kingdom of Persia.110 Further her literary importance resides in setting the stage for the arrival of a new queen.111 Once Esther takes Vashti’s place, an audacious reader would compare them to each other. Vashti was disobedient 104  Vashti is described in the same terms as Beersheba (2 Sam 11:2). 105  K. Craig, Reading Esther, 64. 106  One of the grounds for Vashti’s behaviour could be her rejection of being treated like an object (T.K. Beal, “Tracing Esther’s Beginnings”, 99) and degraded to the status of a concubine (cf. Neh 2:6; Dan 5:2.10), cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 168. However, Herodotus reports that the legitimate wives as well as the concubines were called once the meal was finished, a custom which was unknown among the Greeks, cf. Herodotus, The Histories, 5:18. 107  Cf. C. Vialle, “L’ombre de la reine Vashti”, 525. T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 29: “Vashti will survive her own end in the narrative. She will haunt the rest of the story. The story of Esther and Mordecai never shakes her memory”. Beal also argues that the dynamics explained in chapter 1 are repeated elsewhere in the Meghillah, cf. Ibidem, 47.78–79. This is contrary to Levenson’s view: “some may wish to make of her [Vashti] a feminist heroine. The narrator, however has no interest in her after this brief passage” (J.D. Levenson, Esther, 48). 108  Cf. A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 51. 109  The author makes explicit the deposition by no longer calling Vashti a queen (cf. 1:9.11.12.15.16.17) but simply referring to her by her name (1:19; 2:1.4.17). 110  Cf. T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 31. 111  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 83. Timothy Beal describes this function by using the image of palimpsest, whereby “a story is written, then erased, and then a new

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

113

to the king’s command and did not come to his presence whereas Esther is a model of obedience.112 The Persian queen provoked anger and experienced the consequences of rage in her own flesh while the Jewish regent managed to channel the king’s fury onto other people. 4.3 Mordecai113 From the outset Mordecai is placed on a different level to any of the other protagonists of the story because he is the only character whose presentation is delayed. All the other members of the cast are introduced by their name (1:1 ‫ֲא ַח־‬ ‫“ ְׁשוֵ רֹוׁש‬Ahasuerus”; 1:9 ‫“ וַ ְׁש ִּתי ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬queen Vashti”; 2:7 ‫“ ֲה ַד ָּ֗סה ִ ֤היא ֶא ְס ֵּתר‬Hadassah that is Esther”; 3:1 ‫“ ָה ָמן‬Haman”). Mordecai’s name instead is deferred by the phrase ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫“ ִאיׁש י‬a Jewish man” (2:5),114 pointing that his main characteristic is belonging to the tribe of Benjamin and being a descendant of Saul’s family.115 story is written over the old, erased one” (T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 29). The old story is Vashti’s and the new story is Esther’s, cf. Ibidem, 29–39. 112  Incidentally Esther is an example of obedience to the king’s decree which stated that “every man be lord in his own house” (1:22) because she did as Mordecai had commanded her (2:10.20). No other example of such submission to the royal decree is found in the text of Esther. 113  C. Vialle, “Mordocaï ou les tentations du pouvoir”, 125–139; Id., Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 64–80; A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 87–89. According to LaCocque, the A-text centres more on Mordecai (cf. A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 106; F.W. Bush, Esther, 318– 319); cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 184–188. 114   ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫ י‬becomes the epithet by which Mordecai becomes known (5:13; 6:10; 8:7; 9:31; 10:3). This epithet is an ethnic denomination, rather than a geographical or political term in the book of Esther, thus: “It is not true that a true yehudi is the one who lives in Yehud. Instead, a yehudi can be four generations removed from Jerusalem, for affiliation is not dependent on geographical location” (A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 49). Cf. M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 385: “A biblical epithet serves at least two functions, one bearing directly on the character it qualifies and the other bearing indirectly on the plot where he figures as agent or patient”. 115  Kish was Saul’s father (1 Sam 1:9) and Shimei was a member of Saul’s family who rebelled against David (2 Sam 16:5–13). The author of Esther makes these references in order to develop the plot, cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 167–168. Through the Meghillah, Saul and his descendants are restored. Our protagonists are placed to complete the business that Saul left unfinished (cf. Y. Amit, “The Saul Polemic”, 654–655). This polemic in the book of Esther is not a real call for a descendant of Saul to be placed upon the throne but an expression of “the tensions between the Judeans and the Benjaminites, the disappointment in and disillusionment about the House of David, and a protest against the claim that the Davidic dynasty was the only legitimate option to power” (Y. Amit, “The Saul Polemic”, 658); cf. A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 45–53.

114

CHAPTER 3

He is a Jew who has settled down in the Exile116 and has been assimilated into the court becoming an example of life in the Diaspora117 and a pattern of the vicissitudes of the Jewish people in the exile.118 Mordecai is portrayed as a kind person who looks after his cousin,119 an official of the court who sat at the king’s gate (2:19.21; 5:9.13; 6:10.12)120 and a faithful servant of the king to whom he reports an assassination plot (2:21–22). Therefore he becomes an insider to the royal court into which he takes his ethnicity and part of his people.121 On the other hand, his colleagues think Mordecai is a disobedient and stubborn servant because he did not prostrate before Haman (3:3–4). Even though no reason for such conduct is given, several have been proposed.122 A possible

116  This feature is deduced from his name that makes reference to Marduk, cf. I. Dugui, “But Did They Live Happy Thereafter?”, 89. For a study on the historicity of Mordecai based on the discovering of a tablet mentioning an official of the Persian court by the name Marduka see D.J.A. Clines, “In Quest of the Historical Mordecai”, 131–135. 117   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 185: “Mordecai is an ideal figure, a repository of virtues, a shining example of how a Jew of the diaspora should behave”; cf. S. Talmon, “Wisdom in the Book of Esther”, 448; F.W. Bush, “Opus Non Gratum”, 48. 118  The epithet ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫“ י‬Jew” is to be understood as referring to the Jews who lived as expatriates in various locations of the Persian empire and not in one particular of a geographical location, cf. F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 361. This is the characteristic unifying Mordecai and his people and the most important description of their uniqueness, cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 186. 119  Stern comments that Mordecai is not really an observant Jew because he has a Persian name, is still in the exile and does not observe different aspects Law, even by not marrying Esther (cf. E.R. Stern, “Esther”, 47–48). According to R. Lubitch, there were two co-existing traditions, one portraying Esther as Mordecai’s adopted daughter, another depicting her as his wife. The latter is picked up by LXX, cf. R. Lubitch, “A Feminist’s Look”, 438–439. 120  According to some authors “sitting at the king’s gate” can be considered as a sign of being a royal functionary (cf. R. Gordis, “Studies”, 48; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 38–39; A. Berlin, Esther, 31). 121  D.J.A. Clines, “Reading Esther”, 39. 122  Mordecai’s answer to the question “why do you disobey the king’s command?” (3:3) is unknown. Mordecai’s declaration of his Jewishness might have been the answer but need not be. This ambiguity should be considered a literary device to keep suspense, cf. R.T. Hyman., “Esther 3:3”, 105–108. LXX provides a cultic reason for Mordecai’s refusal in his prayer when he says that he did not bow because he “did not want to put the glory of man above the glory of God, nor will I bow down to anyone except you who are my Lord” (LXX Esth C: 7). For a more detailed study of this reason as expressed in LXX, Josephus and other ancient Jewish sources, see B. Ego, “Mordecai’s Refusal”, 17–28. Michael Heltzer points out that after Mordecai had saved the king, he would have probably been awarded

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

115

reason might be arrogance123 and wounded pride: both Mordecai and Haman are foreigners in the Persian court but only the latter is promoted despite the loyal service provided by Mordecai.124 Exegetes however agree that the most probable reason behind this rejection to bow before Haman comes from the ancient rivalry between Israel and Amalek whose representative Mordecai and Haman are.125 As an individual and the representative of the Jewish people, Mordecai is the object of violence (3:6). The author does not reveal whether or not Mordecai knew that he was the target of Haman’s rage. He nonetheless takes on the figure of main intercessor for his people by performing the ritual mourning on their behalf (4:1–3) and, in a second instance, pleading with Esther to implore mercy from the king (4:5–17). His argument (4:7–8.13–14) is based on solidarity with the Jewish people, showing both his faithfulness to them and his importance within the exilic community. In his dialogue with Esther their relationship changes, Mordecai becomes obedient to her (4:16.17) who up to that point in the story had always followed her cousin’s recommendations (2:10.20). Moreover Mordecai’s life is furthered endangered by a specific violent plan after his continuous refusal to bow before Haman (5:9). The conspiracy designed by Haman’s wife and his friends would seem unbeknown to anyone else apart from them and the readers. Later on, the reader is told through Harbonah’s words that Haman’s plan was common knowledge (7:9). Nonetheless Haman’s project is forfeited when it is exposed by the queen. Thus salvation for Mordecai comes from Esther who in this way begins the deliverance of her people as well. Mordecai the descendant of the king cannot save the Jewish people and depends on a woman for his own rescue. After Haman’s death, Mordecai takes the former vizier’s place in all senses (8:1–2).126 Mordecai’s loyalty to the Jewish nation makes him plead for them after the Agagite’s death, accompanying Esther in writing the edict of selfdefence (8:9–10). Because of his newly acquired power, Mordecai is respected by all, Jews and Persians alike (9:3). His sway extends not only to deciding over the life of people but also is such that he can establish a new feast day in the

the title orosanges (benefactor). One of the privileges of such a title was not to bow before anyone except the king (M. Heltzer, “The Book of Esther”, 29–30). 123   L.B. Paton, Esther, 197. 124  Cf. E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 179–180. 125  Cf. J. Magonet, “The Liberal and the Lady”, 169; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 14.45; H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 316–317; C.A. Moore, Esther, 42; F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 385. 126  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 79.

116

CHAPTER 3

citadel of Susa and the provinces of the empire (9:20–21) which nonetheless need to be ratified by Esther (9:29–32). Mordecai’s role for his people is described in Esther 10:3 as “he searched the good for his people and spoke in favour of the well being of his race” (‫ּד ֵֹרׁש טֹוב‬ ‫ ) ְל ַעּמֹו וְ ד ֵֹבר ָׁשלֹום ְל ָכל־זַ ְרעֹו‬which is translated differently by scholars.127 Thus Mordecai is exalted as the Jew par excellence who not only helped his kinsmen in the past but still seeks his people’s welfare as their great benefactor. This final image of the Jews comprises their own prosperity and the good of society at large. However, this richness comes about as the result of several acts of violence and revenge. Despite being considered a flat character,128 Mordecai passes in this account from being active to being passive to being active again. At first he is Esther’s protector and a Jew who does not want to bow down before Haman. He is also described as a faithful servant of the king and someone who belongs to the administration of the Persian court. Then his life becomes the object of an assassination plot which, after failing, makes him the recipient of honour and exaltation. By the end of the story, he is the second in the kingdom and someone whose power, character and influence have grown beyond his own limits. From the point of view of violence, Mordecai is essentially a passive character and the main recipient of a death threat. He cannot be considered culpable of Haman’s feelings and as far as we know he ignores that he is the target of the planned acts of violence. After Haman’s death, he fills the vacuum left by the previous vizier and matches his violence by issuing the decree of self-defence copying the terms of the previous edict (8:9–14). Even though Mordecai did nothing to save his own life, he uses his new position for the good of his people (cf. 10:2–3) and, by ordering violent acts, promotes their success.

127  “Solícito del bien de su pueblo y promotor de la paz para toda su raza” (J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 371); “[Mardochai] hochangesehen den Juden und wohlgefällig bei der Menge seiner Brüder” (H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 401); “seeking the welfare of his people, and caring for the peace of all his race” (L.B. Paton, Esther, 305), “he sought the best interests of his people and was concerned for the welfare of his kinsmen” (C.M. Moore, Esther, 98); “uno che cercava il bene del suo popolo e che parlava a favore della prosperità di tutta la sua stirpe” (A. Minissale, Ester, 241). 128   F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 319. Sasson disagrees with this view and makes Mordecai the central character of the story, J.M. Sasson, “Esther”, 337.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

117

4.4 Esther129 Esther is the main protagonist of the story130 and a round character whose most important characteristic is change.131 From the outset she is featured as belonging to the Jewish nation, being very beautiful (2:7)132 and depending on Mordecai133 who saved her life after her parents’ death (2:7). Esther’s main change happens in chapter 4 when she is in dialogue with her cousin. In the course of the conversation two transformations occur: first she gives up her previous passivity and second she decides to risk her life for the good of her people. Esther’s decision of receiving a possible annihilation contrasts with the Jewish people who in chapter 3 are the passive recipients of an unjust law. She consciously decides and freely chooses to come into the presence of the king unannounced, endangering her life (4:16), if the king were to act according to the law. At this point Esther impersonates the whole people with their concerns. She is the test case to ascertain whether or not the king will put Persian law in action and likewise whether or not Haman’s decree will be implemented. Sparing the queen’s life means that the lives of her people will be saved. Nevertheless this has to be verified as the story unravels.134 Esther acts again as her people’s representative when she describes Haman as “the adversary and the enemy is this evil Haman” (7:6). This is the Jewish perspective on the Agagite and, by describing him in this way, the author is inviting the readers to sympathise with this point of view. All through this episode

129   L.M. Day, Three Faces of a Queen, 11–15. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 196–211; J. Berman, “ ‘Hadassah Bat Ahigail’ ”, 647–669; C. Fortune, “Plot and Character in the Book of Esther”, 85–96; M.V. Fox, “Three Esthers”, 50–60; J.-D. Macchi, “Les livres d’Esther”, 234–249; K. McGeough, “Esther the Hero”, 44–65; J. Jacobs, “Characterizing Esther”, 283–296; F.W. Bush, Esther, 319–321; K.M. Craig, Reading Esther, 94–99; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 80–99; A.-M. Wetter, “On her Account”, 138–146; cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 136–143. 130  Cf. W.W. Hallo, “The First Purim”, 24; S. Talmon, “Wisdom in the Book of Esther”, 449; A.K. Fountain, Literary and Empirical, 52; J.M. Sasson, “Esther”, 337. 131   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 196; cf. F.W. Bush, “The Book of Esther”, 48–49. 132  From the point of view of the king and Hegai, Esther finds favour and is lovable (2:9.15.17; 5:2). 133  Esther is described as a “lass” (‫)נערה‬, a term referring to a woman in a subordinate position, whatever the family association, rank or legal status might have been, cf. E.J. Revell, The Designation, 33–34. 134  When Esther pleads for her life and the salvation of her people (7:3), she equates her fate to their destiny, cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 83.

118

CHAPTER 3

Esther remains an opaque character.135 For example, she does not tell the truth when Ahasuerus comes back from the garden and sees Haman pleading for his life with the queen. The Agagite had fallen upon the couch where the queen was reclined and his actions were misinterpreted by the king. However, she did not speak up thus consenting to his fate (7:8).136 In this way she contemplates as a spectator the fulfilment of Zeresh’s prophecy: “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him” (6:13). Once Haman has been executed,137 Esther picks up the role as intercessor formally introducing Mordecai to the king as her relative (8:1). The queen then pleads with Ahasuerus on behalf of her people to revoke Haman’s edict. She does not demand violence or fighting or any aggressive behaviour but requests a withdrawal of the imminent peril. The king, however, in an apologetic manner, excuses himself and, calling upon Persian traditions, admits that he cannot change the law. Nonetheless the monarch grants Esther and Mordecai power to write a decree as they please (8:8). This decree, written by Mordecai and sealed with the royal seal, deflects violence from the Jewish people to their enemies (8:9–13). Esther, at this point, is no longer mentioned because this edict allowing revenge is not of her making. After the decree has been put into action, the queen becomes her husband’s interlocutor following the first day of violence (9:12). Once more the king asks Esther “Now what is your petition? It shall be granted you. And what further is your request? It shall be fulfilled”. This question had been previously asked (5:3.6; 7:2) but never fully answered. Esther does not delay any more in giving a reply and makes two aggressive petitions: a second day of fighting in Susa and the public exposure of Haman’s sons, that is, an act of violence and the dishonouring of the Agagite’s family. Therefore, Esther’s first request “is now punitive and precautionary, eliminating opponents who might cause problems in the future”138 whereas her second petition is a deterrent, showing what the end of those who oppose the Jews will be. 135  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 95. 136   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 202: “Haman falls on her bed to plead for his life. Esther’s silence gives her a stony, imperious air, but Haman deserves nothing else. He has no claim on pity, and sparing him would leave him around to fight countermeasures and try again”. 137   C.A. Moore, Esther, 74: “So long as an enemy as powerful and shrewd as Haman lived, he was a threat to Esther, Mordecai and, the Jewish community. To say here that Esther was merciless and unfeeling is to misinterpret the entire situation. Thus, while her heart might have prompted her to be merciful, logic and prudence restrained her”. For a view of Esther as merciless, see L.B. Paton, Esther, 264. 138   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 112.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

119

This request makes Esther an unfriendly character139 and colours her as a bloodthirsty person. However, following Goldman, we interpret Esther’s plea as another example of irony pervading the Meghillah.140 In this way, she cannot be only remembered by a violent entreaty but as both the facilitator of the Jewish victory and the celebrations of their deliverance.141 Hence the importance of the Scroll should be understood in its postexilic context when there is no place for the Jewish monarchy but only for the foreign powers. Therefore “in this context a Jewish queen is born, or rather created, not as a consort of a Jewish king but as an instrument to save her people in a moment of exigency”.142 From a dynastic point of view, Esther is a failure because she does not provide an heir to the king in order to secure the future of his lineage. However, by the end of the story the reader understands that she was brought into the harem143 to fulfil another mission, namely securing the survival of the chosen people. In this way, Esther experiences a motherhood which goes beyond the biological act of childbearing. On the one hand she is similar to Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives who disobeyed Pharaoh’s commandment (Exod 1:7) assuring their people’s survival. On the other hand she can be compared with Deborah, “a mother in Israel” (Judg 5:7) who arose to lead her people into victory. Because there is no evidence of physical descendants, the title “mother in Israel” in the book of Judges must refer to another reality.144 It recalls the recurring maternal images in the Scriptures describing the protection offered by a mother. Thus Deborah shows forth divine care in times of distress.145 Authors 139  Cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 287; C.D. Harvey, Finding Morality, 42–43. 140  S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical”, 23. In Fox’s opinion the request is a literary addition to explain the liturgical practice of Purim and should not be taken in consideration for the creation of the character of Esther, cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 203.263. 141  J. Magonet, “The Liberal and the Lady”, 174: “The violence that she displays is only a reflection of the violence implicit in the system into which she has been cast. It is the violence of tyranny that corrupts everyone who is part of it [. . .] the festival which should take place, not on the day of the fighting itself, but when the fighting is over. It is the day after that is set aside for rejoicing; it is the deliverance that is celebrated, not the killing that had to accompany it”. 142  H. Zlotnick, “From Jezebel to Esther”, 491. 143  Elna Zolvang argues that the description of harem in the Meghillah does not correspond to the western mentality. It was a women’s structure rather than a male dominated one, cf. E. Zolvang, “The First Orientalist?”, 205–211. 144  A first interpretation is to set it in contrast with the character of Sisera’s mother (Judg 5:27), cf. W. Groß, Richter, 314. 145   D.I. Block, Judges, Ruth, 226.

120

CHAPTER 3

agree also that this title146 underlines Deborah’s authority and leadership in Israel as impetuous defender and custodian of her people safeguarding their continued endurance.147 According to Susan Ackerman, there are three characteristics of the title “mother in Israel”: first a mother in Israel should be a good counsellor; second she should put her skills at the service of preserving the “heritage of Yhwh”, that is Israel, and finally she has to lead the military actions of Israel in order to safeguard its covenantal unity and wholeness.148 In our case, Esther’s astuteness guarantees her people’s enduring presence by both an act of disobedience and her involvement in violence. Therefore she deserves the epithet “mother in Israel”. 4.5 Haman149 Haman’s description is bracketed by two opposites, his exaltation (3:1) and his fall (7:8). In between these two moments, his life is described as driven by pride, honour-seeking and a desire to supersede. Haman appears suddenly at the beginning of chapter 3 as the object of a series of royal favours. Moreover his first deed is to investigate the accusation against Mordecai and, having discovered that it is true, he becomes angry (3:5) and decides to exterminate all the members of the Jewish people.150 Haman is self opiniated to the point of being volatile in his reactions (5:9–14). In this way he is presented similarly to Ahasuerus. The parallel between both characters is 146  The other occurrence of the title “mother in Israel” can be found in 2 Sam 19:20 referring metaphorically to the city of Abel. This city is an image of wisdom defending the traditions of the people (I. Fischer, Gotteslehrerinnen, 59) and is spared through the intercession of a woman. She maintains the well being of the Israelites which are described as the “heritage of Yhwh” (C.V. Camp, “The Wise Women”, 27–28) by averting destruction. Her intercession signals that the solution to the people’s problems is in a single man’s death. In this way she also becomes a “mother in Israel” by using her skills in order to guarantee the survival of her people (S. Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, 40–41). Similarly a woman, Esther, denounces a man, Haman, whose death meant the salvation of the Jewish people. 147  Cf. T.C. Butler, Judges, 140; S. Dempster, “Mythology”, 47; J.C. Exum, “ ‘Mother in Israel’ ” 85; B. Lindars, “Deborah’s Song”, 168, n. 23. 148  S. Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, 42. 149   F.W. Bush, Esther, 317–318; A. LaCocque, “Haman”, 207–222; J. Asurmendi, “La construction d’Haman”, 421–431; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 99–110; N. Hacham, “Haman”, 96–101. For an account of the story of Esther from Haman’s point of view see the dramatised retelling of the story by Philip R. Davies, cf. P.R. Davies, “Haman the Victim”, 138–154; cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 155–158. 150  J. Asurmendi, “La construction d’Haman”, 429: “Ainsi en qualifiant de ‘juive’ l’opposition à Haman l’Agaguite, 6,13 contribue fortement à présenter le conflit du livre comme ayant une dimension foncièrement ethnique”.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

121

twofold, namely, Haman’s response is out of measure: all the Jews should pay for one man’s offence just in the same manner as when Ahasuerus decreed against all women because of Vashti’s behaviour.151 Secondly, Haman asks for advice and follows what his wife and friends suggest152 in the same way as the king had followed Harbonah’s proposals. In both cases, the suggestion entails violence. Haman’s first words are to accuse the Jewish people and to plot their destruction, offering a large sum of money. The king’s reply to his vizier’s accusation is to grant him power to do as he pleases with the Jews (3:10–11). After these events, Haman is called ‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫“( צ ֵֹרר ַהּי‬the enemy of the Jews”)153 as a further epithet characterising him. He expresses his hatred of the Jews when reporting to his wife and his friends that Mordecai’s main characteristic is his Jewishness (5:13). However, this hatred is only the means to achieve self-exaltation and retaliation against Mordecai who had opposed him. Haman’s feelings are transparent to the reader154 who discovers that the Agagite’s main characteristics are anger and pride.155 Wrath drives Haman in all his actions156 and makes him insensitive to the feelings of others (3:15b). Pride, boosted by the queen’s invitation to the banquet (5:4), is subsequently wounded when Mordecai does not bow down before the vizier. The same dishonour and dismay are experienced once more while parading Mordecai (6:12). This scene begins with the greatest expression of Haman’s pride as he thinks that the king could only exalt him (6:6).157 Angry and humiliated, Haman is also impatient and cannot wait for the determined time to enact his personal vengeance on Mordecai. This impatience is the cause of his sudden death as a result of the precipitation of the events.158 The swiftness in the changeover means that Haman passes from being the mind behind a strategy of destruction to becoming its object. Esther describes him as “the adversary and the enemy is this evil Haman” (7:6) and thus his 151  For a parallel between Ahasuerus and Haman, see J.D. Levenson, Esther, 47–48. 152  This is yet another example of irony. Haman does not obey the king’s edict by which men should be in charge of their households (1:22). 153  See chapter 2 §1.1.2 for a study of this epithet. 154  Haman is somehow psychologically instable because he changes mental states from rage to joy to depression, cf. J. Asurmendi, “La construction d’Haman”, 424. 155   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 179: “Haman is simply driven by pride and the hostility this engenders. [. . . .] What is revealed in all this is a vast and tender ego”. 156   E.J. Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 180. 157  Haman’s reply shows that he wants to be treated and even acknowledged as if he were the king, cf. A. Berlin, “The Book of Esther”, 12. 158  J. Rosenheim, “Fate and Freedom”, 134.

122

CHAPTER 3

secret machination against Mordecai and all the Jews is revealed publically. Due to the king’s misunderstanding of Haman’s actions, the Agagite is condemned to suffer the same death as he intended for Mordecai. After his death, his shadow hangs over the Meghillah and he is always presented in a negative light (“enemy of the Jews” 8:1; 9:10.24; Agagite 8:3.5; 9:24).159 Moreover in chapter 9 we are given a new feature of Haman’s life. The reader knows Haman is married to Zeresh (5:10) and had lots of children (5:11). The narrator reveals their number and their names (9:7–10). Esther requests their public exposure for the humiliation of Haman’s dynasty which becomes the standard punishment for treason whereby the accused suffers violence even after death.160 Hence Haman’s character can be described as the image of what anger and pride can cause in the life of a person. The evil personage hides nothing from the reader161 who realises how ridiculous he is. Haman is therefore the representative of all the enemies of the Jews and a stereotype of his nation,162 showing the deadly consequences of wounded pride and wrath united to ancient resentment.163 4.6 Jewish People164 Unlike the other characters in the tale, the Jews are not described by the narrator. They are directly depicted by pagans on two occasions. First of all, Haman portrays them to the king as one single people spread throughout the empire and whose laws are different from those of the empire. Haman further depicts them as disobedient to the laws of the land and inconvenient to the workings of the Persian realm (3:8). Therefore they should be exterminated. The king agrees to their annihilation even though he does not know who they are. The reason given to the readers for the destruction of all the Jews is simply that they are Haman’s people (3:6). Second, the Jews are qualified as an indestructible people by Zeresh. The only reason why Mordecai would survive and Haman fall is that the former belongs to that chosen race (6:13).165 159  Haman’s influence is felt in a stronger manner than Vashti’s. After her removal she is no longer ‫“ ַמ ְל ָּכה‬the queen” whereas Haman is still ‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫“ צ ֵֹרר ַהּי‬the enemy of the Jews”. 160   J.M. Sasson, “Esther”, 341. 161  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 178–179. 162  A. LaCocque, “Haman in the Book of Esther”, 211. 163   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 181. 164  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 212–234; F.W. Bush, Esther, 321–323; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 124–130. 165  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 79–80.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

123

Some of the aspects of Haman’s description are true: the Jews are united in their actions (4:16; 9:15) and are spread throughout the empire with their own script and language (8:9). On the other hand, they show themselves partially obedient to the law which allowed them to defend themselves against their enemies and to take from the Persians’ possessions (9:10.15.16). On that occasion, they only put into practice the first commandment and do not take the plunder.166 Esther and Mordecai also disobey some laws: Mordecai does not bow before Haman (3:2) while Esther decides to come to the presence of the king unrequested (4:16). Other than these two descriptions, the Jews are presented as the passive recipient of a conflict and as the object of an edict of total destruction (3:13; cf. 8:3.5; 9:24.25.31; 10:3). Further, they are also subjects of actions.167 Following Haman’s decree, the Jewish nation undergoes the different rituals of fasting and mourning (4:3), mirroring Mordecai’s actions (4:1). They answer the decree of liberation by rejoicing (8:17) and put it into practice in their fight against their enemies (9:1–5). Following the days of fighting, the Jews declare and celebrate the public holiday of Purim (9:20–32). The king also authorises Mordecai to write to all the Jews inciting them to defend their lives as a single people (8:11–13). This decree is put into practice in chapter 9 and the Jews become the subject of acts of violence against their enemies: ‫“ נכה‬to smite” (9:4), ‫“ אבד‬to destroy” (9:5) and ‫“ הרג‬to kill” (9:12). Thus they show that they are self-sufficient and that they do not need to be protected by anyone.168 The Jews act only against those who attacked them (9:1) sparing the Persians who supported them (9:2). In this way, the Meghillah does not advocate a hostile feeling against all the Persians but only against the reduced number of those who fought against them.169 As the story advances, the reader realises that “the conflict of the story is between Haman and Mordecai— helped by a foolish king—not between Persians and Jews”.170 As a result of the days of fighting the Jews are allowed to institute the festivity of Purim, during which they celebrate the relief experienced and not the bloodshed undergone. This is the sense of Esther’s request for a second day 166  According to some exegetes this behaviour is to be understood at the light of 1 Sam 15, cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Book, 200, n. 35; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 115; F.W. Bush, Esther, 476. 167  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 213–216. 168  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 215–216. 169  This was the view of German scholars at the beginning of the 20th century, for a short summary of views see M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 217–218. 170  S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies”, 23.

124

CHAPTER 3

of fighting. The Jews are not rejoicing in the massacre but this description is a literary device to explain aetiologically the second day of feasting.171 The morality of the Jewish actions has been questioned by scholars down the centuries.172 However, one should understand the description of the Jewish behaviour as a literary feature created by the author who should be held solely responsible for any behaviour described in the book. In the tenor of the Scroll, the exaggeration of casualties aims at creating a detachment between the reader and the Jewish people173 with whom they will not identify. The Jews come into the light as a unique race. Even though they are mixed with the rest of society, they retain their distinctiveness and despite being described as passive recipients of actions, they are active in their reactions to violence and the defence of their own interests and their lives. 4.7 Minor Characters Other than the five major characters and the Jewish people studied above, there are other members of the cast who play an important role in the plot of the story. Out of those minor characters,174 we will study three groups related directly to the violence described in the Meghillah. 4.7.1 Bigthan and Teresh175 These two eunuchs are introduced suddenly into the flow of the story.176 The reader is only told that they belong to the court’s functionaries and that they intended to kill the king. In this micro-account, though, the spot light is set on Mordecai who is used as a time reference, “in those days, namely, when Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate” (2:21). He discovers the plot and brings it to the attention of the king through the mediation of Esther (2:22).

171   F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 322. 172   L.B. Paton, Esther, 283. 173  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 129; J. Magonet, “The Liberal and the Lady”, 174–175. 174  A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 85: “There are a number of minor characters or agents. They are not important in their own right but function as pieces in the background or setting, or as aids in characterizing the major characters”. 175  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 132–136; cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 95. 229. 176  This episode has been analysed by different scholars from the point of view of textual traditions as reflected in LXX, A-text and MT. It has been proposed as a case study to prove the precedence of a textual tradition or another. For a review of the major works on this subject, see S. Frolov, “Two Eunuchs, Two Conspiracies”, 304–325.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

125

Bigthan and Teresh’s appearance in the story enhances it literally in two ways. First their episode characterises Mordecai as the king’s faithful servant whose deed is recorded in the annals of the kingdom, and second their story describes proleptically the end of those who plot against the Empire.177 At this point we are interested in the latter feature. As the story progresses, three elements of the account play a part in the development of the Meghillah: the role of anger (“Bigthan and Teresh became angry”), the plan to kill (“they plotted to assassinate king Ahasuerus”) and the execution by hanging (“the two of them were hanged at the gallows”).178 The dynamics shaped in this episode are repeated later in our Book. Anger is discernible at the outset of a desire to kill someone and such a wish leads to the hanging of those who planned the assassination. This sequence is attested in Haman’s story (7:1–10) with the only exception that the accusation brought against him is not investigated. The difference can be explained literally as follows: fury took possession of the king as he condemned Haman because he felt the Agagite’s offense as a misdemeanour against his honour whereas the eunuchs’ affair had been more detached from him. 4.7.2 The King’s Counsellors179 The king receives advice on a few occasions (1:13–22; 2:2–4; 3:8–14; 6:3.11; 7:9– 10) and some of them involve violence. Other than Haman’s counsel on how to deal with the Jews, recommendations regarding belligerent behaviour are offered to the king twice. Memuchan suggests to depose Vashti and how to deal with the ripples her case might cause (1:16–22) whereas Harbonah reminds the monarch of Mordecai’s services and points out the gibbet prepared in Haman’s house (7:9). Ahasuerus orders Haman’s execution immediately (7:10) in the same way as he had heeded Memuchan’s counsel previously. The king follows their counsel setting these two eunuchs as instrumental in the characterisation of Ahasuerus’s weakness of character and dependence on other people’s opinions.180 177   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 65: “The deliverance of Ahasuerus from his would-be assassins and the deliverance of the Jews from their archenemy Haman are of a piece”. Cf. A. Berlin, Esther, 31–32. 178   T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 61. 179  Cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 159. 182–183. 180  Cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 265; L.M. Day, Esther, 34; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 133. Vialle also links the stories in chapter 1 and chapter 7 by the advice provided by Memuchan and Harbonah respectively. In both cases, their advice results in the replacement of a pagan character by a Jewish one, Esther instead of Vashti, Mordecai in place of Haman.

126

CHAPTER 3

4.7.3 Zeresh and Haman’s Advisors181 Haman’s wife and his advisors appear twice in the Scroll (5:10–14; 6:13) and on both occasions they offer him advice.182 Their first suggestion is directly linked with violence and convinces Haman to seek Mordecai’s execution whereas the second piece of advice foretells the Agagite’s fall. By killing Mordecai Haman’s advisors seek to ease Haman’s frustration. This action would be a way of exposing openly his power and boosting his wounded honour publically. The exposure of Mordecai’s corpse would be a due revenge against the one who had humiliated the Agagite in a public place. The immediacy of this action would compensate for the delay if one waited for the king’s decree to be set in place. The literary function of Zeresh and Haman’s advisors becomes clear as their advice turns out to be for the good of the Jews and the downfall of Haman.183 5 Framework Any story happens within some coordinates which describe when, where and how the action unfolds. This framework is important for understanding an event. Moreover, some of these factors should be considered as real, such as the duration of an event or the places described, whereas others might have a metaphorical value, for example, morning is the time of promise and a mountain the place of the meetings with God. In the case of Esther we argue that all the elements which set the scene are to be considered as real and not allegorical.184 5.1 Time The story of Esther is set against the backdrop of the Persian empire and the reign of Ahasuerus (1:1).185 It is narrated in the simple past and, apart from one example, there are no references either to previous events or episodes yet to come. The only flashback takes the reader to the time of the Exile and is used by the narrator to link the Jewish protagonists of the story with the religious 181  Cf. E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther, 242–243. 182  There is a chiastic relationship in their appearance cf. 5:14: “and Zeresh his wife and his friends spoke to him” (‫אמר לֹו זֶ ֶרׁש ִא ְׁשּתֹו וְ ָכל־א ֲֹה ָביו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ )וַ ּת‬and 6:13: “and his advisors and Zeresh his wife said to him” (‫אמרּו לֹו ֲח ָכ ָמיו וְ ֶז� ֶ֣רׁש ִא ְׁשּתֹו‬ ְ ֹ ‫)וַ ּי‬. 183  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 137–138. 184  Cf. D. Marguerat – Y. Bourquin, La Bible se raconte, 99–108. 185  However, the chronology offered for the deportation makes this account historically impossible, cf. A. LaCocque, Esther Regina, 32; E.R. Stern, “Esther”, 48.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

127

history of the chosen people (2:5). The actual time scale of the Meghillah is ten years186 and most of the actions take place in that period, even though, through the decrees the reader is taken into the years to come (9:21.27). There are many indicators of time within the story,187 such as the duration of the banquets (1:4.5) and the precise point at which the king gets angry (1:10) and when his anger subsides. Events that take place daily are recounted (2:11) as well as what happens at night (6:1). The succession of certain actions is expressed either by the formula “in those days” (1:2; 2:21) / “on that day” (8:1; 9:11) or by the use of a preposition with an infinitive construct (1:2; 2:1; 5:2.9).188 The author plays both with delay and with readiness. A period of one year is observed by the girls before being taken to the presence of Ahasuerus (2:12)189 and one year is the time stipulated before the destruction of all the Jews (3:7). Esther waits for three days before going into the king’s presence (4:16; 5:1).190 These delays create suspense and make the reader wonder what would happen next.191 Suspense is also added by regulating the difference between narrative time and narration time.192 For example, Esther’s appearance before Ahasuerus is recounted in great detail (5:1–2), slowing down the pace of the narration and adding to the drama of their encounter. On the other hand, the whole day of battle is summed up by the casualties produced (9:6).

186  The story begins in the third year of Ahasuerus’ reign (1:3), the lot was cast in the twelfth year of his reign (3:7) and put into action twelve months later. 187   P.A. Noos, “A Footnote on Time”, 310–312. 188  In temporal clauses the preposition ‫ ְכ‬. precedes the infinitive construct, conveying that the action referred to by the infinitive has preceded immediately the main action of the sentence (cf. 2:1; 5:2). In other instances (cf. 1:4.17; 2:8.12.15; 3:4; 9:25), the preposition ‫ְב‬ appears with the infinitive construct and denotes simultaneity, cf. A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb, § 32; Waltke – O’Connor, § 36.2.2b. 189  For an explanation of this period as a “rite of passage”, see A.-M. Wetter, “In Unexpected Places”, 321–332. 190  The expression “on the third day” (5:1) is used elsewhere in the Scripture as a convention to indicate some important event (for other memorable events that happen on the third day see Gen 34:25; 40:20; Exod 19:19; Jdg 20:30; 2 Sam 1:2). In our case, it indicates Esther’s resolution to save herself and her people, cf. J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 306, n. 4. 191  M. Sternberg, “Grand Chronology”, 100: “All suspension entails suspense in that it blocks the ongoing movement towards the future that the text has promised (or, if fearful rather than hoped for, threatened) to complete”. 192  Narrative time is the duration of the events of the story whereas narration time is the material time necessary to tell the narrative. Whereas the former is measured out in units of time, the latter is paced by the amount of writing devoted to it; cf. J.L. Ska, Our Fathers Have Told us, 7–8.

128

CHAPTER 3

The narrator also slows down the pace by the comprehensive description of the court,193 the cosmetic treatment process before meeting the king (2:11–12) and by giving both the roll call of the eunuchs ministering Ahasuerus (1:10.13) and the names of Haman’s ten children (9:7–10). These lists underline respectively the importance of Vashti’s presence at the banquet, make us ponder on the consequences of the king’s anger and highlight the vengeance taken on Haman’s household.194 A further example of delay appears when Esther defers her request to the king (5:7–8) and the narrator inserts a series of secondary elements and a subsidiary plot. The simple audience granted to Esther by the king is thus extended by an audience to Haman (6:1–11) and two banquets arranged by the queen (5:4–8; 7:1–10). The king asks her three times what she wants (5:3.6; 7:2) before she gives an answer, while in the meantime there are two confrontations between Mordecai and Haman (5:10; 6:10–11). The Agagite in turn holds two conversations with his wife and friends. In this delay, Mordecai’s unrewarded service is discovered and everything works towards the dramatic climax of the action. The insertion of Haman’s meeting with Mordecai results in the Agagite being frustrated, his plan to have the Jew hanged being devised and the subsequent the exaltation of the Jew taking place. This carefully thought out procrastination is planned to “prolong the reader expectation of Esther’s triumph to the utmost”.195 Promptness of action on the other hand is associated with anger as in the case of the deposition of Vashti, the decision to exterminate all the Jews (3:6), the speed at which Haman’s mood changes from happiness to wrath (5:9) or the command to have Haman hanged (7:9). The narrative also speeds up when Haman is taken to the queen’s party after his wife has foretold his fall (6:13– 14). Such hurry makes Zeresh’s words linger in Haman’s mind and the mind of the reader who continues reading under the suspicion that their fulfilment is immediate. Further, it is significant that Haman casts lots in the month of Nisan as the Jews prepare to celebrate Passover (3:7). In this way the author links the decree

193   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 16: “The exclamatory listing creates a mass of images that overwhelm the sensory imagination and suggest both the sybaritic delight in opulence and an awareness of its excess”. 194   F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 475. 195  J. Licht, Storytelling, 108. See also pp. 107–109.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

129

of extermination to the events of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt196 interpreting the celebration of Purim in the light of the Passover festival. 5.2 Space There is a clear difference between the public and the private spaces in the story of Esther.197 The reader is admitted to what happens in private as described by the omniscient narrator, who then moves the reader from the private sphere to the public arena. For example, the reader is part of the invited guests to the banquets given by Ahasuerus in chapter 1 and witnesses both Vashti’s rebellion and its repercussions. At the same time the reader is a guest of honour at the private gathering of the council who decides what to do with the queen. Without having to fear for his or her life the reader is admitted to the presence of the king and glimpses his affairs while hearing his conversations. The king’s gate becomes the place where all violence is initiated. Bigthan and Teresh connive against the monarch there (2:21) while Haman gets angry because of Mordecai’s behaviour towards him at that location (3:5–6). From the king’s gate the reader is catapulted to the immensity of the Persian empire (3:12–14) through the decree written by Haman and sanctioned by the king.198 Immediately, we are taken back to Susa in order to behold the contrast between the celebration at the king’s palace and the commotion in the city (3:15). In this way a relationship is established between private space and the private thoughts and feelings of the characters. The king loves Esther when she is presented to him (2:17) and shows her mercy in private when the queen comes to visit him (5:1–2). Haman’s scheme to have Mordecai hung is planned in his house (5:10) while the Agagite’s death sentence is passed at the queen’s apartments. On the other hand, the execution of acts of violence is always public, taking place in the citadel of Susa or the provinces. Even though Haman’s execution took place in his private garden, given the height of the gallows, the Agagite’s death could be hardly considered a private affair.

196   T.K. Beal, Esther, 49. 197  The action of the story happens in “Susa”, “the citadel of Susa”, “the court of the garden of the king’s palace”, “the queen’s house belonging to the king”, “the king’s palace”, “the harem”, “the king’s gate”, “Haman’s house”, “the streets of the city”, “the palace garden”. Mentions are also given to the provinces and the breadth of the empire “from India to Ethiopia, 187 provinces”. 198  H. Zlotnick, “From Jezebel to Esther”, 489.

130 6

CHAPTER 3

Universals of Narrative

According to Meir Sternberg there are three universals in any biblical narrative: suspense, curiosity and surprise.199 Suspense “derives from incomplete knowledge about a conflict (or some other contingency) looming in the future”200 and springs from the difference between what should take place and what actually does happen. As such, suspense feeds the reader’s desire to peruse the story. If suspense looks forward to the future, curiosity takes a retrospective view. Thus giving an interpretation of something as already having happened: “most of the curiosity gaps bear on internals—motives, schemes, personality—which the narrator is under no obligation to communicate in his guise as historian. It is the public life that he professes to record, and the secret life that his recording secretly twists into prominence for the reader to unravel”.201 Surprise on the other hand plays with the reader “being lured into a false certitude of knowledge”.202 This fundamental of the narration changes the reader’s perspective because he or she thinks to have all the knowledge about the story well secured. Then some new information is disclosed making him or her reassess the previously held views. 6.1 Suspense Suspense is one of the main characteristics of our story203 and relates to violence from the outset. What would happen to queen Vashti once the king’s anger is incited? How is Mordecai going to be rewarded after his service to the king? Would the decree of annihilation be enacted? And will Mordecai convince his cousin to appear at the king’s presence? Would the king respect Esther’s life when she comes to him unbidden? Will the king agree to Haman’s request to have Mordecai hung? What is Esther’s request to the king? What would happen to Haman after the queen has unmasked him? This is to mention just a few questions that any reader may pose from the text. A further point of suspense comes once Haman is dead because it seems that the solution to the Jews’ problems has been found. However a further element comes into play, namely, the immutability of the Persian law (8:8) leaving the question 199  Cf. M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 264–320. 200  M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 264. 201  M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 285. 202  M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 309. 203   P.A. Noos, “A Footnote on Time”, 316: “The author of the book of Esther proves himself singularly adept at achieving ‘those startling leaps of the imagination’ as he advances his story, slowing, stopping, starting again and frequently rushing the flow of time”.

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

131

as to whether or not Haman’s edict would be put into practice. Linked with this question, the author presents a final case of suspense by describing the second royal decree of self-defence. All these questions take centre stage and make the Meghillah stand out as different when compared with other biblical stories because, in all these circumstances, it does not take the step to describe plainly God’s action in history.204 Instead, all these instances of suspense highlight human freedom without underscoring divine determinism of history underlining that the answer to these questions is in the hands of the protagonists. Out of all the above mentioned questions, the most important are those which deal with the survival of the Jewish nation.205 At two different points death hangs over the Jews: the first royal edict (3:13) and Haman’s gallows (5:14). When the reader thinks he or she has solved these problems, a new factor is added: the persistence of the Persian regulations. In this manner, the desire to know whether or not the Jews will survive is inserted to pick up the reader’s attention. Nonetheless, the author hides some clues to infer that the Jewish nation will be delivered from destruction. Esther is treated twice as a proleptic sign for the Jewish people. After a year of preparation, she is favoured by the king and those who are in authority (2:15–17), foreshadowing the mercy shown to the Jewish people when the decree comes into force, a year after its promulgation. Second, when the queen appears unbidden before Ahasuerus (5:1–2) her fate is in his hands. Will the king enforce the law barring anyone to come to his presence unless requested (cf. 4:11)? By sparing her life, the king hints at the deliverance of the Jewish people. When she comes into the king’s presence, she tarries in making her request and thus the author manages to keep the readers’ attention. The narrator’s mastery of the tale makes the reader remember that what is at stake is the personal conflict between Haman and Mordecai by inserting their meeting after the Agagite leaves the queen’s first banquet (5:9). This encounter ends up with a premonitory sign of Haman’s collapse in the face of Mordecai (6:1–12). Haman’s death gives the opportunity for a solution to the injustice suffered by Mordecai when his services were not rewarded. The author reminds his readership of what had happened at the beginning of the story, but it is only towards the end that Mordecai is raised to the place of honour. Death

204  M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives, 277. 205  The question about Esther’s ethnicity also adds to the suspense. What would happen if Esther reveals her national identity?, cf. M.A. Halvorson-Taylor, “Secrets and Lies”, 485.

132

CHAPTER 3

had to occur before this event could take place and the reader is surprised by Mordecai’s behaviour resembling Haman’s. 6.2 Curiosity The Meghillah contains several examples of curiosity, even though not all of them get an explicit answer in the text. The reader does not know why Vashti refuses to come into the presence of the king, why Esther was chosen from among all the young ladies or why Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman. One can postulate answers to the previous questions. The literary answer to the Vashti enigma is the need to prepare the stage for a new queen. Mordecai’s refusal to pay homage to Haman is an unresolved riddle. Belonging to the Jewish race cannot be the only reason (cf. 3:4) because Esther is also a Jewess and bows down before the king (cf. 8:3). The author, though, gives an interpretation of Esther’s choice and puts it into Mordecai’s mouth: “and who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this” (4:14). Mordecai’s interpretation of history opens a window into what God’s design might be and then, this explanation is clarified in the narrative that follows.206 6.3 Surprise The Meghillah develops in a linear manner and the behaviour of all the characters is more or less clear to the reader. However at 8:7 the reader finds out that the king’s behaviour had not been as logical as he or she would have thought. Referring to Haman, Ahasuerus says: “they have hanged him on the gallows, because he would lay hands on the Jews”. In contrast, it seems obvious that in chapter 7 the reason for sentencing the vizier to death was his rape attempt on the queen.207 The king takes the reader by surprise disclosing that he had another reason unknown to anyone else apart from himself. The reader has been led on the wrong path and quickly has to reassess all his or her evaluations. At first, Haman is recognised as someone who wants to destroy the 206  This has been called by scholars “principle of dual causality”, hinting at the collaboration between humans and the divine. Cf. J. Grossman, Esther, 212. The author of Esther does not explain how this principle works or even that God is at all involved in the story. We can, nevertheless, call it into play as an interpretative choice due to Esther’s relationship to the Joseph narratives (cf. Gen 50:20). 207  D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 313. If the reader does not understand this example of surprise, he or she may misunderstand the whole thrust of the argument as it happens with some authors: “It is remarkable that Haman’s execution cannot be attributed to his attempt on the life of the Jews, but to a crime he had not committed, namely, raping the queen” (J.C. Siebert-Hommes, “ ‘Come to the Dinner I Have Prepared for You’ ”, 97).

Violence In The Narrative Of Esther

133

Jews and then as a rapist too. There is no sympathy to be shown. Further, the reader re-evaluates Harbonah’s words: “Moreover, the gallows which Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, is standing in Haman’s house, fifty cubits high” (7:9). This utterance takes a new meaning and can be interpreted as a clue for the king’s behaviour. By killing Haman, the monarch is rewarding the Jew for his services. This example of surprise makes us read over the story again and reconsider the character of the king.208 Whereas after Haman’s decree, Ahasuerus seems to disregard the tragedy of the Jews (3:15), he now appears as someone whose heart leans towards the well being of the Jewish people. He demonstrates that he is favourable to the Jewish cause by issuing the edict of self-defence and by allowing the Jews in Susa to have a second day of revenge. Violence reveals itself as the manner by which the king supports the Jews in his kingdom. 7 Conclusion The Meghillah is an account in the third person with reported speeches and legal material in which there is no moral evaluation of a situation or people, unlike the case of other biblical stories (cf. Judg 3:7; 2 Sam 15:6). The tapestry of this tale is rich and varied. Its narration contains beautiful images of contrast (3:15) while the dialogues express advice (1:16–20; 2:1–4; 5:14) or tell the state of affairs (3:8–10; 4:7–8). The letters and edicts recount the events which have happened and give orders about what should be done (9:21.31) and all along the story flows carried, among others common threads, by the vocabulary of violence. The narrator, who does not interfere with the narration, reports the characters’ point of view so that the readers may sympathise with the Jewish cause. In this context, violence has a role throughout the plot. It appears from the beginning of the narrative and then is developed in the conflicts which make up the story. The turning points following the Meghillah’s complications expound feelings and actions which can be classified as violent and which lead to a denouement abounding in revenge. On the other hand, the final situation describes the outcome of violence and revenge as peace and prosperity. The final picture is achieved as a combination of actions and omissions by the different characters. Therefore knowingly or unbeknown to the members

208  Similar to Jonah 4:2, cf. J.-P. Sonnet, “L’analyse narrative”, 72.

134

CHAPTER 3

of the cast, their actions work for the good of all.209 The prosperity described happens within a framework made credible by the accurate descriptions of time and place. Hearers could relate to the citadel of Susa and the months of Adar, Nisan or Tebet.210 All these coordinates engage the reader in following the story curious about what would happen. Hidden in the text of the Meghillah, the author affirms that justice is present in the world because the wicked are punished and the faithful are rewarded. Further our book shows that humans without God become homo hominis lupus est.211 Therefore the Meghillah at the same time gives a hope for those who are under oppression and raises also a warning bell for those who abandon their relationship with God.

209   J.M. Sasson, “Esther”, 341: “In Esther, unsubtle villains meet with brutal fates; proud partisans are fully vindicated; lovely heroines retain the affection of all; and stolid, dim-witted monarchs are there to be used by all”. 210   P.A. Noos, “A Footnote on Time”, 317: “From a literary point of view, counting the months would have been a reminder of the Jewishness of the story, while the use of the Babylonian names was an allusion to the captivity and exile, reminder of the time of the story”. 211  M.C.A. Korpel, “Theodicy”, 372: “(. . .) the Book of Esther also shows how easily human goodness can come to an end”. Korpel’s argument is that the Meghillah was written as a criticism for those Jews who had given up hope and the religion of their ancestors due to a feeling that God had dealt too cruelly with them. Esther, who had suffered the exile and the loss of her parents would be an image of what the Jews had suffered.

Part 2 Exegesis of Chosen Passages

⸪

CHAPTER 4

The King’s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23 It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it will heal nothing.1

⸪ The way Persians lived is recounted in the Meghillah which, together with some classical authors, is one of the main literary sources for understanding how the Persian court was organised. Among the different features of courtly life singled out, evidence points that assassination plots against kings are a common occurrence. Another common element between the biblical and the classical texts is the reference to the importance of the “eunuchs” or “officials” (sarisîm or eunokhoi). In the present chapter we will study, among other things, these two characteristics of the Persian court in order to understand the significance of Esth 2:21–23 in the overall structure of the book.2 1 Text ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ּומ ְר ֳּד ַכי י ֵֹׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַע‬ ָ ‫ ַּבּיָ ִמים ָה ֵהם‬21 ‫יסי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ִמּׁש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ַּסף‬ ֵ ‫י־ס ִר‬ ָ ֵ‫ָק ַצף ִּבגְ ָתן וָ ֶת ֶרׁש ְׁשנ‬ ‫ֹלח יָ ד ַּב ֶּמ ֶלְך ֲא ַח ְׁשוֵ ר ֹׁש׃‬ ַ ‫וַ ַיְב ְקׁשּו ִל ְׁש‬ ‫ וַ ּיִ ּוָ ַדע ַה ָּד ָבר ְל ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי וַ ּיַ ּגֵ ד ְל ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬22 ‫אמר ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַל ֶּמ ֶלְך ְּב ֵׁשם ָמ ְר ֳּד ָכי׃‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּת‬ ‫ל־עץ‬ ֵ ‫יהם ַע‬ ֶ ֵ‫ וַ ֻיְב ַּקׁש ַה ָּד ָבר וַ ּיִ ָּמ ֵצא וַ ּיִ ָּתלּו ְׁשנ‬23 ‫וַ ּיִ ָּכ ֵתב ְּב ֵס ֶפר ִּד ְב ֵרי ַהּיָ ִמים ִל ְפנֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך׃‬

1  J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King, 157. 2  Esth 2:21–23 has been analysed as a case study of the relationship among the different versions of Esther, cf. S. Frolov, “Two Eunuchs”, 304–325. See also N. Hacham, “Bigthan and Teresh”, 318–356, in which the author highlights the socio-political reasons for the changes in LXX.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_006

138

CHAPTER 4

1.1 Textual Notes There are no significant textual problems in our passage save a comment made by BHQ regarding the officials’ names. When compared with the other Greek texts,3 there is a major divergence in the way Esth 2:21–23 is recounted. A-Text does not provide this episode at all while LXX changes it slightly and avoids the officials’ proper names. The Greek versions provide an analogous description of a plot against the monarch in their introduction to the book4 (LXX A:12–17 and AT A:11–15.185). In LXX, the two officials who had plotted against the king are identified as Gabatha and Tharra whilst in A-Text as Astaos and Thedeutes. Moreover neither in 2:21 nor in 6:2 does LXX give them a name.6 According to us, the alterations in LXX avoid the repetition in the Scroll7 while the lack of this account in A-Text is due to the desire to prevent reduplication of some information already given.8

3  Cf. N. Hacham, “Bigthan and Teresh”, 322–325; J. Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted, 326–328. 4  Jerome divides this first addition into two chapters. The first chapter recounts Mordecai’s dream and the second describes the conspiracy of Gabatha and Tharra. The Old Latin, instead, has only Mordecai’s dream (cf. J.-C. Haelewyck, “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version”, 458–459). Authors have noticed that the LXX redactor put together the two different parts of the addition. This redactional work can be spotted due to the different quality of the Greek (N. Hacham, “Bigthan and Teresh”, 330). 5  There are also differences between LXX and A-Text in their introduction. In LXX, Mordecai speaks directly to the king and the eunuchs confess their murderous intention. In AT, instead, the king rewards Mordecai confirming him in his office as gate-keeper while there is a link between the pericope of the two eunuchs and Mordecai’s dream. For a more thorough comparison between the prologues of the Greek versions, see D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 190–196. 6  The use of different names in the three texts implies that the various redactions belong to different traditions, cf. J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 222. For a comparative table of the characters’ names in each version see C.A. Moore, Esther, XLII. 7  According to some scholars, the author/redactor of LXX had two different accounts of eunuchs plotting against the life of the king. These reports were placed in two different parts of the book producing some redactional adjustments in chapters 2 and 6, cf. C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther 302; S. Frolov, “Two Eunuchs”, 311.322; N. Hacham, “Bigthan and Teresh”, 324–325. Many have queried the origin of the botched regicide attempts and the primacy of one account against the other. Moore answered definitively the question as to whether the LXX addition was original or not by highlighting that if LXX A:12–17 were original there would not be a need to introduce Mordecai again in Esth 2:5–6 (C.A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, Jeremiah: the Additions, 175). 8  Cf. K. de Troyer, “Esther in Text”, 48; D. Candido, I testi del libro di Ester, 192; A. Minissale Ester, 117.

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

139

There are other differences between the MT and LXX in chapter 2 concerning content and style. Other than the absence of the officials’ names, there are three further omissions in LXX, that is, the lack of the temporal phrases “in those days” and “namely, while Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate”, the absence of the title “queen” given to Esther the first time she is mentioned, and the lack of a reference to Mordecai as the source of the information when Esther gives her report to the king in verse 22. In addition, LXX interprets the expression ‫ֹלח יָ ד‬ ַ ‫“( ִל ְׁש‬to extend the hand”) as ἀποκτεῖναι (“to kill”). In LXX the king takes an active role in the hanging of the conspirators. This new attitude of the monarch is expressed by a change in the verbs; for example, the impersonal plural ‫“( וַ ּיִ ָּתלּו‬and they hanged [them]”) is translated as a third person singular ἐκρέμασεν (“he [the king] hanged [them]”) in verse 22.9 Similarly the passive ‫“( ּיִ ָּכ ֵתב‬it was written”) is transformed into an active verb having the king as its subject προσέταξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς καταχωρίσαι (“the king commanded to record [a memorial in the royal archive in praise of Mordecai’s loyalty]”). Thus the connection between the king, the event and its subsequent consequences is underscored.10 Mordecai also writes his own account of the affair and becomes the target of Haman’s wrath because of the two eunuchs of the king (LXX A:17). All these examples and others make Tov affirm: “we regard Esth-LXX as a free translation of a rewritten version of MT rather than a paraphrastic translation”.11 1.2 Translation 21 In those days, namely, when Mordecai was sitting at the king’s Gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king’s officials, Guardians of Threshold, became angry and plotted to assassinate king Ahasuerus. 22 And their intention was made known to Mordecai and he informed Esther the queen and Esther told the king about the plot12 on behalf of Mordecai. 23 And the affair was investigated and was verified and the two of them were hanged on the gallows. Then the affair was written in the annals in the presence of the king.

9  The same phenomenon occurs in 8:7 when the king’s words are changed from ‫“( ָּתלּו‬they have hanged [him]”) to ϵ̓κρϵ́μασα (“I have hanged [him]”); cf. E. Tov, “The LXX Translation of Esther”, 521. 10  E. Tov, “The LXX Translation of Esther”, 511. 11  E. Tov, “The LXX Translation of Esther”, 526. 12  For this translation, we follow LXX, whereby the generic ‫ ַה ָּד ָבר‬becomes the concrete ϵ̓πιβουλή , (“a plan devised against someone, a plot”), T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon, 269.

140 2

CHAPTER 4

Literary Analysis

2.1 Delimitation In our opinion Esth 2:21–23 should be treated as a separate episode, a selfcontained unit, which nonetheless is related with its context.13 The reasons for our choice concern both style and the protagonists of the story. Verse 21 begins with two temporal adverbial expressions:14 “in those days” (‫ ) ָה ֵהם ְּבּיָ ִמים‬and “namely, while Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate” (‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ּומ ְר ֳּד ַכי י ֵֹׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַע‬ ָ ). The former should be taken as a marker separating our passage from the previous unit. Chapter 3 begins with the expression “after these events” (‫ַא ַחר ַה ְּד ָב־‬ ‫ ) ִרים ָה ֵא ֶּלה‬which breaks the flow of the narration.15 Thus the above mentioned temporal expressions delimit the length of the account, setting 2:21–23 as a unit. Further, two new characters—Bigthan and Teresh—are introduced in the narrative. They become the protagonists of this mini-account in which Esther, Mordecai and Ahasuerus also play a role. Once the resolution has been achieved a further episode begins in chapter 3 with the introduction of Haman as a new member of the cast. 2.2 Setting Despite being set apart from its immediate context, Esth 2:21–23 is also connected to the rest of the Meghillah as we will show. The expression “while Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate” creates a formal link to the surrounding text because it also appears in 2:19. If we took that expression away from 2:21, there would not be a change of meaning in the text.16 We argue that this phrase has been inserted by the author as a literary technique in order to connect our 13  Cf. H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 310–314; G. Gerleman, Esther, 84–87; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 63–65; J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 259–261; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 39–40; A. Berlin, Esther, 31–32; H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 85–88; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 29–30; J. Grossman, Esther, 77–80. Other scholars link these verses with the preceding context, cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 186–193; C.A. Moore, Esther, 29–32; D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 291–293; F.W. Bush, Esther, 370–374; T.K. Beal, Esther, 39–42; C.M. Bechtel, Esther, 34–35; A. Minissale, Ester, 106–108. Linda Day, however, treats 2:21– 3:15 as a unit, cf. L.M. Day, Esther, 61–77. 14  G. Gerleman, Esther, 84. Moore does not give any value to these indicators for the dating of the event. For him, they have a resumptive function, cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 30; L.M. Day, Esther, 62. 15  According to the Masoretes, 2:21–23 is a unit and hence they placed a setuma before 2:21 and a petucha after 2:23, cf. A. Evans “ ‘And Mordekhai’s Order’ ”, 240. 16  Berlin states that the occurrence of ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ּומ ְר ֳּד ַכי י ֵֹׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַע‬ ָ in verse 19 might be a later addition because it fits better in 2:21, cf. A. Berlin, Esther, 30.

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

141

pericope with its context.17 Additionally, the expression “at the king’s gate” in 3:2 brackets our text linking it with the following chapter. The three main characters of the story so far are mentioned in these verses creating a connection to the Meghillah. All of them are identified by their titles: Mordecai, the civil servant (‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫) ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי י ֵֹׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַע‬, king Ahasuerus (‫ֶמ ֶלְך‬ ‫ ) ֲא ַח ְׁשוֵ ר ֹׁש‬and queen Esther (‫) ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬. In addition, the eunuchs as a group are already known to the reader (cf. 1:10; 2:3). In 2:21–23, however, they are not the king’s faithful servants but become conspirators against his life. Moreover, this pericope is mentioned again in chapter 6. Chapter 6 recounts how the king is unable to sleep and requests for the annals of the kingdom to be read out to him. While reading them, he is reminded of the botched assassination attempt of Bigthan and Teresh and, after inquiring how he had rewarded Mordecai, the monarch is told that no recompense had been given. Being distressed by this oversight, Ahasuerus seeks advice from Haman who has just come into the royal precincts. The Agagite was visiting the monarch to ask for the execution of Mordecai. However, due to a misunderstanding and his own vainglory, he has to honour the Jew in one of the funniest scenes of the whole Bible.18 In this way the Meghillah portrays the beginning of Haman’s descent and Mordecai’s ascent.19 The connections between chapter 6 and 2:21–23 are manifold. Both passages are full of unexplained coincidences such as why did Mordecai appear at the king’s gate when the eunuchs were plotting against the king? Other 17  We note a similar technique in 5:9 and 6:10 in which the expression “to Mordecai the Jew who sits at the king’s gate” (‫ּיֹוׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַער ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ֵ ‫הּודי ַה‬ ִ ְ‫ ) ְל ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי ַהּי‬belongs to a dialogue and is set within two different situations. In both cases, this expression describes Mordecai but refers to two confronting circumstances. In 5:9 Haman speaks to his wife and friends describing Mordecai’s behaviour dishonouring him, whereas in 6:10 the king orders Haman to honour Mordecai. Thus, these two mentions form an inclusio highlighting the ironic features of the text because the same Mordecai on account of whom Haman loses his temper has to be honoured by the Agagite. 18  The irony of the scene is highlighted by the omniscient reader who knows more than any of the characters, cf. A. Wénin, “Pourquoi le lecteur rit”, 472–473. 19  There are several grammatical pointers in chapter 6 suggesting that Haman would be replaced by someone else. First, the expression ‫“( נַ ֲע ֵרי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְמ ָׁש ְר ָתיו‬the king’s attendants who minister to him”) appears twice (2:2 and 6:3). In chapter 2 these attendants suggest looking for another queen after Vashti’s deposition whereas in chapter 6 they point out the lack of reward given to Mordecai. Second, the verb ‫“( ָח ֵפץ‬to please”) is found in 6:6.7.9.11 and in 2:14 as the king is searching for a new queen. Third, the expression ‫ר־מ ְלכּות ְּברֹאׁש‬ ַ ‫“( ֶּכ ֶת‬the royal crown on her head”) in 2:17 indicates that Esther has taken Vashti’s place and in 6:8 refers to the honour expected by Haman. All these examples describe the different phases of Vashti’s dethronement leading an attentive reader to the conclusion that Haman will be replaced soon.

142

CHAPTER 4

coincidences relate to the text which the assistants were reading and the fact that Haman came into the court as the king was in need of advice. Each pericope begins in a similar way with a temporal clause (2:21; 6:1) and continues with an extensive use of the passive tense and reoccurring vocabulary. Further in both instances Haman appears unexpectedly after the eunuchs have been mentioned and Mordecai is identified by his official title as “Mordecai the Jew who sits at the king’s gate” (‫יֹוׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַער ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי‬ ֵ ‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫ ַהּי‬cf. 5:13; 2:22). Despite these similarities there are two noticeable changes regarding grammar and content. The wayyiqtol ‫“( וַ ַיְב ְקׁשּו‬and they plotted”) in 2:21 becomes a subordinate clause in 6:2 ‫[“( ֲא ֶׁשר ִּב ְקׁשּו‬Bigthan and Teresh] who plotted”) while Esther is completely absent in chapter 6. A further point of contact between 2:21–23 and the Meghillah resides in the use of similar vocabulary and analogous narrative dynamics. For example, Mordecai comes to know something (4:1) which he relates to Esther (4:7–8) so that she may speak to the king on his behalf (7:1–6). The king orders the culprit of a crime to be hanged (7:9–10) and important matters for the kingdom are recorded (9:32).20 The role of anger (1:12.18), the expression ‫ֹלח יָ ד‬ ַ ‫“( ִל ְׁש‬to extend the hand” 3:6; 8:7; 9:2) or the mention of the gallows (5:14; 6:47:10; 9:13) also connect this pericope with its surrounding context. Grossman postulates that Esth 2:21–23 exhibits similarities with chapter 1 because both start with a similar grammatical structure, i.e. a temporal expression using the preposition ‫ ב‬and the word ‫ יום‬in the construct state. Likewise, in both accounts there is the removal of a character which paves the way for the exaltation of someone else. Thus as the expulsion of Vashti allowed the success of Esther so the execution of Bigthan and Teresh prepared the promotion of Mordecai.21 2.3 Structure Among the possible structures,22 we propose a five-fold division for Esth 2:21–23.23 After the exposition (2:21a) there is a complication (2:21b–22a),

20  J. Grossman, Esther, 79–80. 21  J. Grossman, Esther, 78. 22  According to Beal, 2:21–23 can be structured into two sections: 2:21–22a and 2:22b–23 whereby the former is set on the periphery and the latter moves to the centre. The point of this pericope is to make the passage from the outskirts to the centre (T.K. Beal, Esther, 39). Others (Paton, Moore, Bush, Fox, Levenson, Wahl) do not propose a structure for these verses. 23  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 29.

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

143

followed by the turning point (2:22b) which gives way to the denouement (2:23a) and the final situation (2:23b). Our structure emphasises the recording of the eunuchs’ conspiracy in the royal annals encouraging the reader to wonder what the results of this act of writing would be. At the same time, the character of Esther is highlighted as the catalyst for the resolution of the problem. Additionally, the king is placed as the pivotal figure in the account even though he does not say or do anything. This structure is re-enacted elsewhere in the Meghillah. For instance, in chapter 4 Mordecai possesses some vital information which he delivers to Esther so that she may relay it to the king. On this occasion the monarch’s life is not in danger but all the Jews are close to extermination. This problem extends for nearly three chapters, but the dynamics used in the pericope of the king’s attendants reassure the reader that the resolution of the Jewish problem is at hand and will imply Esther’s mediation and the salvation of her people. 3 Commentary The fundamental information of the story is delivered in 2:21 and the data provided answers the following questions: when the events happened; where they occurred; what happened; who the protagonists were and how the characters were involved in the episode. The author uses some techniques already employed previously. When describing the time of the event, the author employs the sequence made up by the Hebrew expressions ‫“( ְּבּיָ ִמים ָה ֵהם‬in those days”) and ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ּומ ְר ֳּד ַכי י ֵֹׁשב ְּב ַׁש ַע‬ ָ (“namely, when Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate”). The ‫ ו‬should be considered another example of wawexplicativum (cf. 1:12).24 The action takes place in “the king’s gate” ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬, a location which is proper to the Scroll (2:19.21; 3:2.3; 4:2 [x2].6; 5:9.13; 6:10.12).25 In most of these examples the preposition accompanying the expression is ‫( ְב‬2:19.21; 3:2.3; 4:6; 5:9.13; 6:10). Alternatively the prepositions ‫( ִל ְפנֵ י‬4:2.6) and ‫( ֶאל‬4:2; 6:12) are also used. Because all these prepositions have a spatial meaning26 the expression

24  Chapter 3 §1.2. 25  The only other occurrence of ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬in the Bible is 1 Chr 9:18. Dan 2:49 places Daniel in the ‫( ְת ַרע ַמ ְל ָּכא‬the king’s gate), an Aramaic expression that refers to the same kind of architectural structure as ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬. 26   J M §133b.c; Waltke-O’Connor, 11.2.2; 11.2.5; 11.3.1.

144

CHAPTER 4

‫ר־ה ֶ ּֽמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬must refer to a space, part of the royal complex, and not only to the door of a building.27 According to some scholars28 ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬is one of the buildings of the palace, different from the other edifices mentioned in the Meghillah (1:5; 2:9.11; 4:11; 6,4).29 It consists of a closed construction, where lower members of the administration gather as expressed by the phrase “to sit at the king’s gate” (3:2.3)30 and which opens into the royal palace as attested by 4:2.4. The expression ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬must refer to both the Gate and the area surrounding it31 as well as the people who work there. Moreover, archaeological finds in the 1970s corroborate the descriptions of the Meghillah and prove that its author was familiar with the distribution of Susa’s palatial complex.32 A monumental gate complex was found in the Susa excavations covering 1,200m2, an external court, the king’s Hall (40,000m2) and the Audience Hall, called Apadana (12,000m2).33 The Gate’s central room was a square of 21 metres at each side 27  These prepositions presuppose a movement towards a location. In 4:2.6, though, ‫ַׁש ַער־‬ ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬must refer to the actual Gate. 28  Cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 188; H.P. Rüger, “ ‘Das Tor des Königs’ ”, 247–250; F.W. Bush, Esther, 371. 29  The phrase ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬is not to be confused with ‫ ַה ִעיר ַׁש ַער‬which appears as a meeting place in the Hebrew cities. The principal civil functions of the city gate were acting as the administrative centre where taxes were discussed or laws were promulgated as well as being the economic focal point of the city where the local market was set up; cf. E. Otto, “‫”ׁשער‬, 393–401. 30  R. Gordis, “Studies”, 47–48; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 38–39; A. Berlin, Esther, 31. According to Paton, “sitting at the king’s gate” is a synonym of being a man of leisure and not necessarily a royal official (L.B. Paton, Esther, 188). 31  O. Loretz, “š‘r hmlk”, 106–107. According to Hans Peter Rüger ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬refers to the royal garden, cf. H.P. Rüger, “ ‘Das Tor des Königs’ ”, 250. 32  The foundation inscription discovered in Susa attests to the existence of a palatial structure called the ‘Gate’ (cf. F. Vallat, “L’inscription trilingue”, 171–180). J. Perrot, “Historique des recherches”, 20 n 13: “D’autres indications encore concernant les maisons des femmes, les jardins, tendent à confirmer l’impression que le récit biblique, dont l’historicité reste à établir, a bien sa source à la période achéménide dans le milieu des familiers du grand palais du Susa”. Cf. A. Barucq, “Esther”, 5; E.M. Yamauchi, “Mordecai”, 274. 33   E.F. Schmidt, Persepolis, 70: “The Apadana of Persepolis is essentially an immense square hypostyle hall, enclosed in all sides by thick walls of sun-dried bricks which separate it from columned porticoes on the north, east and west and from a row of store-rooms on the south, the four corners of the structure are occupied by towers with stairs leading to the roof. Two pairs of monumental stairways ascend from courtyards on the north and east to the bedrock platform on which the building was erected”. Cf. J. Perrot, “Historique des recherches”, 19–20; E.M. Yamauchi, “Mordecai”, 275.

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

145

with four columns and most certainly was the area referred to as the “king’s gate” in the book of Esther.34 ‫ר־ה ֶ ּֽמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬in Esth 3:2–3; 5:13; 6:10 is used as a metonymy for the seat of government35 and as a term for the royal household, including both domestic staff and officials.36 The expression points to the building mentioned in 4:2.6 and also in 2:19.21 with the difference that the former describes the square outside whereas the latter gives an insight into what happens inside.37 Thus “sitting at the king’s gate” becomes a synonym for holding an office in the palace administration.38 In the case of Mordecai, such position refers to a high ranking office39 giving him access both to palatial business and to queen Esther. Once the time frame and the location have been described, the characters are introduced in a similar way to the preceeding chapters.40 The new members of the cast are presented by providing their names first and their titles subsequently. Furthermore, from a literary point of view the role of anger occupies a primary place since it is given as the reason why the officials desire to murder the monarch.41 Between chapter 1 and the end of chapter 2 though there is a major rupture of style because the Meghillah changes drastically from the baroque grandeur of the beginning of the story42 to a succinct account of the eunuchs’ conspiracy. Our pericope leaves a series of unanswered questions: why did Bigthan 34   E.M. Yamauchi, Persia, 300. 35  Cf. H.P. Rüger, “ ‘Das Tor des Königs’ ”, 247–250. 36  E. Otto, “‫”ׁשער‬, 370. 37  The expression ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬is systematically translated as αὐλή , in LXX (2:19.21; 3:2; 5:9; 6:10.12). According to Moore, the problem is that an early Greek copyist read αὐλή , instead of πύλη (cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 30). Following Clines, we disagree with Moore’s interpretation. In our view the choice of αὐλή , is due to the correct interpretation of ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ ַׁש ַע‬as a building complex (D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 292). 38  O. Loretz, “š‘r hmlk”, 104–108. This expression is also used in classical sources for those who held important posts, cf. Herodotus, The Histories, 8:120. 39  In Heltzer’s view, Mordecai might have been the head of the secret services because he had knowledge of all the things that happened (M. Heltzer, “The Book of Esther”, 29); A. Berlin, Esther, 31. On the other hand, Minissale considers the expression “to sit at the king’s gate” as “una qualifica che indica il modesto ufficio che già ricopre nella corte” (A. Minissale, Ester, 106). 40  “Ahasuerus” is ‫( ֲא ַח ְׁשוֵ רֹוׁש ַהּמ ֵֹלְך‬1:1); “Mehuman, Biztha, Harbonah, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas” are ‫יסים‬ ִ ‫( ִׁש ְב ַעת ַה ָּס ִר‬1:10); “Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan” are ‫ּומ ַדי‬ ָ ‫( ִׁש ְב ַעת ָׂש ֵרי ָּפ ַרס‬1:14), just to mention a few. 41  A. Minissale, Ester, 110. 42  Cf. F.W. Bush, Esther, 371; J. Grossman, Esther, 77.

146

CHAPTER 4

and Teresh get angry with the king? How did Mordecai come to know their intentions? How did Mordecai relay the information to the queen and how did she pass it on? These and other issues remain pending because the interest of the author is to create a “masterpiece of foreshadowing”43 as we shall show below. Because we have already commented on some of the expressions or words making up 2:21–23 (‫“ קצף‬to get angry”,44 ‫“ ׁשלח יד‬to extend the hand”45 and ‫תלה‬ “to hang upon the gallows”46) we will focus now on three other aspects of the account which will assist us in understanding these verses. 3.1 Use of Verbs Esth 2:21–23 also stands out as different from chapter 1 because of its use of verbs. Other than a participle and an infinitive construct there are nine finite verbs of which five are passive.47 These grammatical forms have a double effect. First they slow down the tempo of narration and secondly they highlight both the importance of the action and the result created by such an action.48 The most prominent endeavour underlined by the passive forms is the eunuchs’ conspiracy (‫ ) ַה ָּד ָבר‬which appears as the grammatical subject of four verbs (2:22: ‫“ וַ ּיִ ּוָ ַדע‬it was known”; 2:23 ‫“ וַ ֻיְב ַּקׁש‬it was researched”; ‫“ וַ ּיִ ָּמ ֵצא‬it was found”; ‫“ וַ ּיִ ָּכ ֵתב‬it was written”). In the first instance, the passive construction “their intention was made known to Mordecai” obscures the source of such information and emphasises Mordecai’s role in the unveiling of the eunuchs’ scheme.49 The other three verbs draw attention to the veracity of the plot and also the enduring effects of the action since it is recorded in the annals. Hence these passive verbs set violence at the heart of our pericope and put the spotlight on Mordecai, showing that Haman’s accusation of disloyalty against the Jew is false (3:8)50 whilst describing Mordecai as the king’s great benefactor.51 This description is similar to the one found in LXX, even though the Greek version anticipates it with respect to its prologue. In LXX A:11–17 Mordecai is exalted as a result of his denunciation of the officials’ plot which seems to 43  A. Berlin, Esther, 31. 44  See chapter 2 §2.1. 45  See chapter 2 §3.3. 46  See chapter 2 §3.1. 47  Elsewhere in the Meghillah the use of passive verbs is due to politeness strategies (3:9.12; 9:13), cf. B.D. Estelle, “Esther’s Strategies”, 82–84. 48  Waltke-O’Connor, 23.2.2a. 49   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 39. 50  Cf. S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 74–75. 51  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 259.

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

147

have been promoted by Haman. In this way the conflict between the Jew and the king’s vizier is highlighted and the unjust persecution of all the Jews is underlined.52 The additional passive verb ‫“( וַ ּיִ ָּתלּו‬they were hanged”, 2:23) emphasises the role of Bigthan and Teresh. Their presence is also underscored by the background information provided in 2:21 (“Bigthan and Teresh [. . .] became angry” ‫) ָק ַצף ִּבגְ ָתן וָ ֶת ֶרׁש‬. Their planned coup d’état is expressed by the verb ‫“( ָק ַצף‬to get angry”) which frequently refers to political conspiracy in the Ancient Near East world.53 After this waw-x-qatal, the eunuchs’ enterprise is described by the first wayyiqtol of the pericope (“they plotted to assassinate king Ahasuerus” ‫ֹלח יָ ד ַּב ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ וַ ַיְב ְקׁשּו ִל ְׁש‬2:21), giving their intention a prime position. Their anger, which in our view is caused by an offence to their honour,54 and their botched regicide get Bigthan and Teresh a privileged place in the chronicles of the kingdom. Thus an act of violence gives them the honour they thought had been taken away from them. The remaining two verbs ‫“( וַ ּיַ ּגֵ ד‬and he told [her]”) and ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“( וַ ּת‬and she reported”) have Mordecai and Esther as subject and the conspiracy as object. In this way the author develops the relationship between both cousins and for the first time the communication between Mordecai and Esther is described. This picture, however, is fully developed in chapter 4. Esth 2:21–23 also gives another example of the close relationship between Mordecai and Esther in so far as she obeys her protector (cf. 2:10.20). Before 2:21–23 Esther is obedient to all the dictates of her cousin while in 2:21–23 their relationship takes a further development and becomes one of collaboration. However, the means of communication between Mordecai and Esther and between Esther and the king are not specified. This is the case because the author’s interest relies on what is said rather than on how the information is relayed.55 The content of this communication is a political crisis set in contrast with the social upheaval described in chapter 1. The previous unrest was caused by Vashti’s public refusal to obey the monarch’s orders, whereas the second one is a private affair brought to light and resolved by the collaboration of Mordecai and Esther.56

52  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 221. 53  D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 292. 54  Chapter 2 §2.1.3. 55  Bardtke hypothesised that the communication between the king and the queen took place after a night of love, cf. H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 312–313. 56   T.K. Beal, Esther, 39: “This new crisis will be resolved not by Esther exactly, but by Mordecai through Esther and by Esther through Mordecai”.

148

CHAPTER 4

3.2 Description of Characters Esth 2:21–23 describes the first action of the Jewish members of the cast at the royal Persian household. At the centre of the passage stands Esther who is characterised as having been raised to her post as the king’s consort. She is called “queen” for the first time and seems to have free access to the monarch. Esther had been given the imperial diadem and the royal privileges after the deposition of Vashti (2:17b) but the title had not been mentioned before. Her first action as a newly-instituted queen is to speak to her husband on behalf of Mordecai in order to save the monarch’s life. She is portrayed therefore as a reliable confidant and source of information.57 Hence the author makes Esther the main character in this account58 portraying her queenship by two actions: first she takes a series of decisions linked with the saving of a life and second she speaks to the king on behalf of her cousin, features which are taken up later in the story. Sharing the central stage with Esther we meet Teresh and Bigthan who show disloyalty to the monarch.59 These individuals are described as eunuchs.60 Eunuchs were part of the court administration and played an important role as faithful servants.61 Some eunuchs had influential roles in the royal court62 such

57  A. Berlin, Esther, 32; cf. L.M. Day, Three Faces of a Queen, 165. 58  We disagree with Vílchez who makes Mordecai the protagonist of this pericope even though the verbs in verse 23 are impersonal (cf. J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 261). LXX instead sets the king as the subject of the verbs “to investigate” and “to hang” making him more active in the plot. 59  In Esth 2:21–23 Ahasuerus is not the grammatical subject of any verb, instead he suffers the conspiracy. This characterisation differs from LXX. In the Greek version the king takes an active role in the investigation and punishment of the officials (2:23) and Esther does not speak on behalf of Mordecai (2:22). 60  B. Kedar-Kopfstein, “‫”סריס‬, 948–954. 61  P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 282: “(. . .) plus que tout autre, un eunuque peut illustrer le thème de la générosité royale répondant (anti touto) au dévouement sans limite d’un homme qui ne peut pas se préoccuper de l’avancement de ses enfants et qui, comme tel, est d’une fidélité quasi animale, car il n’est lié à aucun clan familial ni à aucune faction de cour”. 62  Ctesias, Persica, F13 (9): list of some of the influential eunuchs at the court of Cambyse: Bagapates, Izabetes and Aspadates. Herodotus, The Histories, 3:77: the eunuchs as guards at the royal courtyard and message-carriers. Ctesias, Persica, F9 (6): Petisakas was one of the most influential eunuchs at Cyrus’ court. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VII 5:60–64: Cyrus trusted eunuchs to be part of his personal entourage because since they were unmarried they would be more loyal (here eunuchs are castrated males).

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

149

as the education of small children,63 even though their main task was to take care of the king and the queen’s chambers. This position gave them access to the inner rooms of the monarch64 and some eunuchs profited from this trust in order to conspire against the king.65 Moreover, reflecting on what we can infer from classical sources and the biblical accounts, it seems that the Hebrew word ‫ ָס ִריס‬refers to two distinct types of people: on the one hand, emasculated men who worked as part of the palace’s domestic staff,66 and on the other, men who held important positions in the king’s entourage. Archaeology has unearthed images, which illustrate that the king had among his closest collaborators some who could be considered eunuchs. The common way of describing a eunuch in Persepolis is as a beardless man standing close to the royal throne and holding a towel in his hand as the attribute of his power.67 In the Bible, ‫ ָס ִריס‬is always related to the court administration (except for Isa 56:3–5). This designation does not exclude the fact that some of those men may have been actually castrated.68 Only the study of the context will give a clue as to the real meaning of ‫סי ִרָס‬69 in a given text. 63  Herodotus, The Histories, 8:104: Xerxes entrusted his children to the care of Hermotimus, “his most highly prized eunuch”. 64  The etymology of eunuch is ‘guardian of the bed’. Later folk-etymology makes them keepers of women. This is also the result of the Meghillah’s influence (Hegai and Shaashgaz, 2:3.8.14–15), cf. P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 284–285. 65  Ctesias, Persica, F13 (33); F14 (34): Aspamitres was involved in the assassination of Artoxerxes and Dariois. F15 (48): Pharnakyas, the eunuch, was an accomplice in Xerxes’s murder. 66  Herodotus, The Histories, 3:92: five hundred boys were sold to be castrated to the court of the Persian king. Herodotus, The Histories, 8:105: Panionius made his living by capturing, castrating and selling young men. They served in lowly tasks, cf. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VII 5:59. 67  For example reliefs found at Persepolis (plates 98–99 from the Throne Hall and plate 121 from the Treasury). Schmidt interprets such representations as depictions of a eunuch holding a high ranking office, “The towel carried by our dignitary is, in our opinion, a symbol of personal service, such as that performed by the royal cupbearer or, even more plausibly, the lord chamberlain, perhaps our towel-bearer represents the faithful eunuch Bagapates, who according to Ctesias guarded the tomb of the dead king (Darius I) for seven years” (E.F. Schmidt, Persepolis, 169). 68  Most probably those referred to in 2 Kgs 9:31–33; 23:1.11; 24:15; Jer 34:19; 38:7; 41:16 were castrated. 69  For Tadmor all the occurrences of ‫ ָס ִריס‬refer to castrated men (cf. H. Tadmor, “Was the Biblical sārîs a Eunuch?”, 322–323). He argues that there would be no point in borrowing a word from another language which carries the same meaning as one which already exists in that language. As biblical Hebrew has other words for royal officers such as ‫ָׂשר‬

150

CHAPTER 4

There are 12 mentions of ‫ ָס ִריס‬in the Meghillah.70 In some of these occurrences those designated ‫ ָס ִריס‬must have been emasculated men since they have oversight of and access to the women’s quarters (1:10–12.17; 2:3.14.15; 4:4.5). Conversely, other mentions of ‫ ָס ִריס‬are not so straightforward such as the eunuchs who take Haman from his house to the queen’s apartments (6:14) or the case of Harbonah, one of the royal advisers who had access to the king (cf. the expression ‫) ִל ְפנֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬. A further example of service at the royal court is described as ‫( ׁש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ַּסף‬Guardians of the Threshold), a position taken up by Bigthan and Teresh. This expression is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to designate a priest whose task was looking after money (2 Kgs 12:10; 22:4) and who was different from the High priest and the secondary priests (2 Kgs 23:4; Jer 35:4; cf. 1 Chr 9:19). In the book of Esther the phrase ‫ ׁש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ַּסף‬designates the high officials of the royal court with access to the king’s administrative quarters.71 It could be argued that Bigthan and Teresh belong to the king’s officials and are part of his bodyguard corps.72 These officials are to be contrasted with the keepers of the women (2:3.8.14) and the keepers of the concubines (2:14). Moreover, by calling them by a personal name, the author is trying to make his account more real.73 Bigthan and Teresh’s betrayal introduces the new theme of loyalty to the king and how this loyalty is repaid.74 Their treachery is more shocking when contrasted with the trustworthiness exemplified by other eunuchs in the preceding verses (1:10–11) or Mordecai’s faithfulness to the king.75 We should note nonetheless that the previous saris were keepers of the women (2:3.15) or of the concubines (2:14) and therefore more trustworthy than Teresh and or ‫ ַע ְב ֵדי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, it would be unnecessary to make use of another term to express the same concept. Therefore sārîs should be understood solely as (castrated) eunuch. In our view this is not a solid argument since several words can express the same concept. Scholars tend to explain ‫ ָס ִריס‬as a polysemic and euphemistic term to refer to castrated staff but also various degrees of administration staff, cf. P.V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords, 124. 70  Cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 132–136. 71  E. Otto, “‫”ׁשער‬, 369–370; T.K. Beal, Esther, 41. Cf. πυλουρός in Herodotus, The Histories, 3:77.118. The LXX translates ‫ ׁש ְֹמ ֵרי ַה ַּסף‬as οἱ ἀρχισωματοϕύλακϵς (chief bodyguards) in Esth 2:21 as an exegetical translation highlighting the important rank of the eunuchs (H. Kahana, Esther, 120). Other cases of ‫ ָס ִריס‬as court officials are found in Gen 37:36; 39:1; 40:2.7 at Pharaoh’s court; 1 Kgs 22:9; 2 Kgs 24:15 in the court of Israel; Jer 39:3 and Dan 1:3 among the Babylonians. 72  Cf. P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 287. 73  H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 312. 74  J. Grossman, Esther, 79. See also S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 59–93. 75  Cf. T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 67–68; C.D. Harvey, Finding Morality, 43–45.

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

151

Bigthan. They can be compared though with Memuchan (1:16–20), who is a faithful advisor, or with the unnamed advisors who suggested getting a new queen (2:2). Through this comparison Bigthan and Teresh’s treachery is magnified raising the suspicion that, even within the king’s closest collaborators, a traitor might be lurking. If this is so, the description of these officials should act as a backdrop to the way we understand Haman who is introduced immediately after the account of the eunuchs’ botched insurrection. 3.3 It Was Written in the Chronicles Closely linked with the attempted regicide is its recording in the chronicles of Persia. Even though the biblical account provides references to the Persian kings keeping a record of events (Ezra 4:15), we do not possess any Persian treatise or description of military campaigns or indirect allusions to history from this time.76 Instead, a few inscriptions and two ‘libraries’ have been found in Persepolis: the Fortification tablets and the Treasury tablets, which deal with the inventory of warehousing and the distribution of foodstuffs. These documents provide information about the economic and tribute organization of the Achaemenid Empire.77 The imperial administration must have recorded the legal decisions of the royal court and other political and judicial ordinances. It is within this practice that we should understand the Meghillah, which reflects the ancient Near Eastern custom whereby only what is written is valid and permanent while the spoken word can be forgotten.78 The Meghillah places an emphasis on writing and thus uses different devices to make the account believable from the historical point of view.79 For example, all the references to ‫( ֵס ֶפר‬book) as a noun have a legal sense, being Haman’s decree (3:12.13; cf. 8:5), Ahasuerus’ second decree (8:10) or the Purim ordinances (9:20.25.30.32). The book of the chronicles of the kingdom is mentioned three times in the Meghillah (2:21; 6:2; 10:2) and should not be considered real documents80 which could be consulted as any other book migh be. They have a literary function within and outside the book of Esther. From the outside, they make the story look real and from the internal point of view these written documents 76  O. Klíma, “Awesta”, 19: “Aus der achämenidischen Periode sind heute keine Bücher mehr vorhanden”. 77  Cf. P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 434–437. 461–462. 78  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 22. 79   S.R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 19. 80  Against Gordis who suggests the book of Esther as an example of Persian chronicles, cf. R. Gordis, “Religion, Wisdom and History”, 375–378; also see chapter 1 §3.1.1.

152

CHAPTER 4

give the events lasting authority.81 Radday proposes that the expression “it was written in the Chronicles” is used to indicate a concentric structure82 whereas for Berg the three-fold mention of this phrase is not a mark of chiasm but a common rhetorical trait of biblical storytelling.83 The writing of the record means that the king was fully aware of the events,84 even though it is surprising that this recording was not accompanied by the expected reward given in Persia to the king’s beneficiaries as described by Herodotus.85 Both the lack of reward and the written witness of Mordecai’s actions are a literary necessity so that Haman’s humiliation may take place in an effective way. This dramatic tension is furthered by the Agagite’s exaltation in chapter 3. The chronicles of the Persian and the Mede kings were most probably legal documents whose content is unknown to us. Perhaps they were both the daily accounts of what happens at court (‫ ֵס ֶפר ַהּזִ ְכר ֹנֹות ִּד ְב ֵרי ַהּיָ ִמים‬, “the book of the remembrance of the daily events”, 6:1)86 and an ordered history of the kingdom (‫ ֵס ֶפר ִּד ְב ֵרי ַהּיָ ִמים ְל ַמ ְל ֵכי ָמ ַדי ָּופ ָרס‬, “the book of the daily events of the kings of Media and of Persia”, 10:2). In 2:23 the scribes must have recorded the episode of Bigthan and Teresh as well as Mordecai’s ethnicity since it is only after reading the records that the king calls him “Mordecai, the Jew” (6:10).87 In this way, through an attempted act of violence, the story of the Jews is recorded together with the story of the other nations. Furthermore, in the Hebrew Bible only the untold actions of the kings are written in the books of chronicles of either the kingdom of Judah (1 Kgs 14:29; 22:46; 2 Kgs 16:19; 24:5) or of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19; 15:31; 2 Kgs 1:18; 15:21). The author of the Meghillah thus models his reference to the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia on the biblical account and in this way sets Mordecai at the same level as the kings of old.88

81  A. Berlin, Esther, 95. 82   Y.T. Radday, “Chiasm in Joshua”, 9. 83   S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 110. 84   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 40; F.W. Bush, Esther, 374. 85  Herodotus, The Histories, 8:85: “the reason I mention them is because it was a result of this achievement that Theomestor was instituted by the Persians as tyrant of Samos, while Phylacus’ name was entered on the list of the king’s benefactors and he was rewarded with a large estate. The Persian word for these ‘king’s benefactors’ is orosangai” (cf. 3:138– 141; 5:11). 86  The grammatical similarities between the record in chapter 6 and the happenings of chapter 2 are an example of the accurate recording that took place in Persia (M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 81). 87   T.K. Beal, Esther, 42. 88  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 372.

The King ’ s Life is Spared: Exegesis of Esther 2:21–23

153

Related to other written sources and according to some authors, the presence of two eunuchs who rebel against the king is connected to the story of the two eunuchs in the account of Joseph (Gen 40:1–3.20–23).89 Both stories share a common vocabulary such as the noun ‫( ָס ִריס‬Gen 40:2; Esth 2:21), the root ‫קצף‬ (Gen 40:2; Esth 2:21) and the verb ‫( תלה‬Gen 40:22; Esth 2:23). Further both stories are set in the court of a foreign ruler and recount the story of two eunuchs who act against their superior. Both narratives introduce Joseph and Mordecai to Pharaoh and Ahasuerus respectively thus raising the monarchs’ attention to the existence of the Jews in their palaces. While the eunuchs’ episode in Genesis enhances the description of Joseph as the interpreter of dreams and prepares him to meet Pharaoh, the eunuchs’ episode in the Meghillah describes Mordecai as a faithful servant of the crown. As a result of the officials’ revolution the punishment executed is death at the gibbet. Finally, in both cases there is a turnabout of the position of the Jewish member of the cast following the hanging of the culprits but neither of the Jews is rewarded immediately. Other than the above mentioned similarities, these accounts show some relevant differences. For example, Bigthan and Teresh are mentioned later in the Scroll and play a role in the plot because their affair is part of the reason why Mordecai is exalted. On the contrary the unnamed Egyptian eunuchs do not feature again in Genesis. Further, in the case of the Joseph story Pharaoh is the subject of anger whilst in the Meghillah the king is its object. Both eunuchs are put to death in Persia, while only one is killed in Egypt. All things being equal, we argue that in the overall structure the presence of the eunuchs in the Esther account is more prominent than in the story of Joseph.90 The relation between the two passages is clear and, even though some scholars argue that there is a direct dependence of the Esther account on the Joseph narrative,91 according to us, the author of the Meghillah borrowed some elements and narrative dynamics from the Genesis story changing them to fit his own needs. If that is the case, we can draw two main conclusions for our study. First, Bigthan and Teresh were not castrated eunuchs but officials of a high ranking position like the anonymous chief cupbearer and his companion the chief baker (cf. Gen 40:1–3). Second, if Mordecai is modelled on Joseph, he must be assisted by God in his actions just as Joseph declares that God guides his interpretations of dreams (cf. Gen 40:8).

89  Cf. A. Meinhold, “Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte II”, 79–80. 90  Cf. S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 126–128. 91  Cf. S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 123, 141–142.

154

CHAPTER 4

4 Conclusion Besides picking up some of the features mentioned in the preceding verses, Esth 2:21–23 foreshadows some of the important events yet to come in the Meghillah.92 As pointed out beforehand, this passage shows that the punishment for traitors is to hang on the gallows.93 The death penalty, however, is applied after a legal process in which the accusation is carefully studied and a corresponding sentence is applied.94 In this way our book portrays the Persian legal administration as efficient and fair. The scene is also preparatory for the events in chapter 6 when Mordecai’s action in favour of the king is remembered signalling the change of fortune for the Jew. In the meantime, Haman appears abruptly in chapter 3 closing the exposition and creating a narrative tension which will only be resolved in chapter 8 when Ahasuerus rewards Mordecai for his services. Therefore our episode does not underline the condemnation of the culprits as much as the merits of Mordecai and his faithfulness to the established power.95 Consequently, Esth 2:21–23 provides an example of the use and importance of violence. Aggressive behaviour refers both to the uncontrolled passion of anger and to a way of executing justice in an organised society. These verses also sow the seeds for later development in the plot of the Meghillah. Violence makes Esther take her place as queen and paves the way for Mordecai to assume his preeminent role in society.96 However, the story does not conclude immediately but the reward of the Jewish protagonists is delayed till the end of the Meghillah, creating suspense. Finally, through his action Mordecai is de facto proclaimed the king’s bodyguard taking the place of Bigthan and Teresh who were unable to fulfil their role. In this way, the author of the Meghillah underlines the reliability of the Jewish people in the foreign court.

92  J. Grossman, Esther, 80: “The significance of foreshadowing the entire plot by means of a single scene lies in its emphasis on the reader’s inability to comprehend fully the meaning of individual events without the benefit of retrospect. This relates closely to the ‘hiddenwriting’ style of the narrative as a whole”. 93  Chapter 2 §3.1. 94  In this case, the verb ‫“( ִב ֵּקׁש‬to research, investigate”) has a legal sense which is confirmed by the combination of ‫ ִב ֵּקׁש‬and ‫( ַּמ ַצא‬2:21); cf. S. Wagner, “‫”בקׁש‬, 762. 95   H.M. Wahl, “Der Prozess Hamans”, 106. 96  Mordecai is identified thus with the centre of power, cf. T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 81.

CHAPTER 5

The Beginning of the End: Exegesis of Esther 7:1–10 In my raised fantasy, one crucified Rained down thereafterward, of scornful mood And rancorous in mien, and so he died. Around him great Ahasuerus stood Esther his wife, just Mordecai, he who In word and deed was of such rectitude.1

⸪ Esther 7:1–10 describes the events at Esther’s second banquet and how Haman’s death starts the process of salvation for the Jews. This pericope has been described as an example of “coming out”2 or of “unmasking”,3 whereas we rather consider it a scene of judgement and of dispensation of justice as already depicted elsewhere in the Meghillah.4 In this chapter we will also explore banquets as places of rejoicing and celebration5 which contrast sharply with the fast undertaken by Esther and all the Jews (4:3.15–16).

1  D. Alighieri, The Divine Comedy. Purgatory, 162–163: “Poi piove dentro all’alta fantasia un crocifisso dispettoso e fero ne la sua vista, e cotal si moria. Intorno ad esso era il grande Assuero, Ester sua sposa e il giusto Mardocheo che fu al dire ed al far così intero” (Purgatorio, XVII, 25–30). 2  Cf. T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 96–106. 3  Cf. Craig follows a carnivalesque interpretation of the Meghillah whereby he identifies the masks with the secrets, and the unmasking with the revelation of the truth; cf. K. Craig, Reading Esther, 110–119. 4  For example, Vashti is deposed at a banquet (1:10) while Esther starts her reign with a festive meal (2:19). Haman’s impiety and disregard for other people is revealed at a formal dinner (3:15) and at the same venue he receives judgement and punishment (7:8). 5  S. Plietzsch, “Eating and Living”, 35. Cf. S. Dalley, Esther’s Revenge, 187–189.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_007

‫‪CHAPTER 5‬‬

‫‪156‬‬ ‫‪1 Text‬‬

‫ם־א ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַ ּיָבֹא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ָה ָמן ִל ְׁשּתֹות ִע ֶ‬ ‫אמר ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְל ֶא ְס ֵּתר ּגַ ם ַּבּיֹום ַה ֵּׁשנִ י ְּב ִמ ְׁש ֵּתה ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫‪ 2‬וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ד־ח ִצי ַה ַּמ ְלכּות וְ ֵת ָעׂש׃‬ ‫ה־ּב ָּק ָׁש ֵתְך ַע ֲ‬ ‫ּומ ַ‬ ‫ה־ּׁש ֵא ָל ֵתְך ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה וְ ִתּנָ ֵתן ָלְך ַ‬ ‫ַמ ְ‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫‪ 3‬וַ ַּת ַען ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה וַ ּת ֹ ַ‬ ‫אתי ֵחן ְּב ֵעינֶ יָך ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫ם־מ ָצ ִ‬ ‫ִא ָ‬ ‫ן־לי נַ ְפ ִׁשי ִּב ְׁש ֵא ָל ִתי וְ ַע ִּמי ְּב ַב ָּק ָׁש ִתי׃‬ ‫ל־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך טֹוב ִּתּנָ ֶת ִ‬ ‫ם־ע ַ‬ ‫וְ ִא ַ‬ ‫ּול ַא ֵּבד‬ ‫‪ִּ 4‬כי נִ ְמ ַּכ ְרנּו ֲאנִ י וְ ַע ִּמי ְל ַה ְׁש ִמיד ַל ֲהרֹוג ְ‬ ‫וְ ִאּלּו ַל ֲע ָב ִדים וְ ִל ְׁש ָפחֹות נִ ְמ ַּכ ְרנּו ֶה ֱח ַר ְׁש ִּתי‬ ‫ִּכי ֵאין ַה ָּצר ׁשֹוֶ ה ְּבנֵ זֶ ק ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך׃ ס‬ ‫אמר ְל ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ ‫אמר ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֲא ַח ְׁשוֵ רֹוׁש וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫‪ 5‬וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ר־מ ָלאֹו ִלּבֹו ַל ֲעׂשֹות ֵּכן׃‬ ‫ִמי הּוא זֶ ֙ה וְ ֵאי־זֶ ה הּוא ֲא ֶׁש ְ‬ ‫ר־א ְס ֵּתר‬ ‫אמ ֶ‬ ‫‪ 6‬וַ ּת ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ִאיׁש ַצר וְ אֹויֵב ָה ָמן ָה ָרע ַה ֶזּה‬ ‫וְ ָה ָמן נִ ְב ַעת ִמ ִּל ְפנֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה׃‬ ‫יתן‬ ‫‪ 7‬וְ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָקם ַּב ֲח ָמתֹו ִמ ִּמ ְׁש ֵּתה ַהּיַ יִ ן ֶאל־ּגִ ּנַ ת ַה ִּב ָ‬ ‫וְ ָה ָמן ָע ַמד ְל ַב ֵּקׁש ַעל־נַ ְפׁשֹו ֵמ ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ ‫י־כ ְל ָתה ֵא ָליו ָה ָר ָעה ֵמ ֵאת ַה ֶ ּֽמ ֶלְך׃‬ ‫ִּכי ָר ָאה ִּכ ָ‬ ‫ל־ּב֣ית ִמ ְׁש ֵּתה ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫יתן ֶא ֵ‬ ‫‪ 8‬וְ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָׁשב ִמּגִ ּנַ ת ַה ִּב ָ‬ ‫יה‬ ‫ל־ה ִּמ ָּטה ֲא ֶׁשר ֶא ְס ֵּתר ָע ֶל ָ‬ ‫וְ ָה ָמן נ ֵֹפל ַע ַ‬ ‫אמר ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ת־ה ַּמ ְל ָּכה ִע ִּמי ַּב ָּביִת‬ ‫ֲהגַ ם ִל ְכּבֹוׁש ֶא ַ‬ ‫ּופנֵ י ָה ָמן ָחפּו׃ ס‬ ‫ַה ָּד ָבר יָ ָצא ִמ ִּפי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְ‬ ‫יסים ִל ְפנֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫ן־ה ָּס ִר ִ‬ ‫אמר ַח ְרבֹונָ ה ֶא ָחד ִמ ַ‬ ‫‪ 9‬וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ר־ע ָׂשה ָה ָמן ְל ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ֶּבר־טֹוב‬ ‫ה־ה ֵעץ ֲא ֶׁש ָ‬ ‫ּגַ ם ִהּנֵ ָ‬ ‫ל־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ע ֵֹמ ֙ד ְּב ֵבית ָה ָמן ּגָ ב ַֹּה ֲח ִמ ִּׁשים ַא ָּמה‬ ‫ַע ַ‬ ‫אמר ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְּת ֻלהּו ָע ָליו׃‬ ‫וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ר־ה ִכין ְל ָמ ְר ֳּד ָכי‬ ‫ל־ה ֵעץ ֲא ֶׁש ֵ‬ ‫ת־ה ָמן ַע ָ‬ ‫‪ 10‬וַ ּיִ ְתלּו ֶא ָ‬ ‫וַ ֲח ַמת ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָׁש ָכ ָכה׃ פ‬

‫ ‪1.1‬‬ ‫‪Textual Notes‬‬ ‫‪BHQ indicates several textual notes for Esth 7:1–10, however not all of them are‬‬ ‫‪relevant to the workings of our study. For this reason we have decided to treat‬‬ ‫‪only those which might, in some measure, affect our study.‬‬ ‫ ‪1.1.1‬‬ ‫‪The Conditional Clause in Verse 4‬‬ ‫ִּכי ֵאין ‪ִ )6 and the clause at the end of verse 4‬אּלּו( ‪The unreal conditional marker‬‬ ‫‪ַ (“because the enemy could not be compared with annoying‬ה ָּצר ׁשֹוֶ ה ְּבנֵ זֶ ק ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫‪6  C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, § 165d; cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 196.‬‬

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

157

the king”) were deleted from the Greek versions.7 However, a study of these two grammatical elements makes them part of the original text. The conditional marker ‫ ִאּלּו‬, more frequent in Aramaic, corresponds to ‫ לּו‬elsewhere in the Bible and is attested only twice in the Hebrew Bible, here and in Qoh 6:6. Both passages could be classified as belonging to Late Biblical Hebrew. Since in later Mishnaic and Tannaitic Hebrew ‫ ִאּלּו‬became the norm, in Esther ‫“ ִאּלּו‬may be described as a LBH forerunner of its common employment in later Hebrew of the Mishna”.8 The final clause in Esth 7:4 is one of the cruxes of the book.9 Even though BHS offers to emend the text,10 the editors of BHQ have decided not to change the given text.11 The sentence ‫“( ִּכי ֵאין ַה ָּצר ׁשֹוֶ ה ְּבנֵ זֶ ק ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬because the enemy could not be compared with annoying the king”) is difficult on account of three words of uncertain meaning: ‫ ָצר‬, ‫ ׁשֹוֶ ה‬and ‫נֵ זֶ ק‬. The root ‫ צר‬can mean either “narrow”, “enemy” or “distress”.12 According to Paton ‫ ָצר‬in 7:4 must mean “enemy” just as in 7:6 because its third meaning (“distress”) is never used in Esther.13 Berlin also translates ‫ ָצר‬as “enemy”14 whereas Bush identifies other examples in which ‫ צר‬with patah bears the meaning “enemy” (Amos 3:11) and with qametz meaning “distress” (Ps 4:2; 32:7; Job 38:23; Isa 5:30).15 Hence, he proposes “distress” as the proper translation of ‫ ַה ָּצר‬in 7:416 and relates it to the political damage which the annihilation of the Jews could cause to the Empire.17 In our view Levenson has the final word when he translates ‫ ָצר‬as “enemy”. He argues that the most logical answer to the 7  BHQ, 145*. 8  R.L. Bergey, “Post-Exilic Hebrew”, 163; cf. A. Sáenz-Badillos, Historia, 133; R.L. Bergey, “Late Linguistic Features”, 66–78. 9  L.B. Paton, Esther, 258. Cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 70: “Undoubtedly the most difficult clause to translate in all of Esther”. 10   B HS proposes ‫ ַה ָּצ ָלה ׁשֹוָ ה‬for the phrase ‫ ַה ָּצר ׁשֹוֶ ה‬. 11   B HQ, 145*. 12  Clines, VII, 154–155. 13   L.B. Paton, Esther, 261. 14  A. Berlin, Esther, 67; cf. T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 113. 15   F.W. Bush, Esther, 427; cf. HALOT, 1052. 16   F.W. Bush, Esther, 427; cf. R. Gordis, “Studies”, 55–56; H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 351; C.A. Moore, Esther, 70–71; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 82; W.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 146. 17  Grossman discusses the possibility that ‫ ָצר‬might have a double meaning as both “distress” and “enemy” because of the proximity of 7:6, in which the only possible meaning of ‫ ָצר‬is “enemy”. According to him the ambiguity is present and willed. So Esther refers both to the political and economical distress caused by the hypothetical loss of the Jews and to Haman not being worth the trouble to be listened to; Cf. J. Grossman, Esther, 163–164 and A. Berlin, Esther, 68.

158

CHAPTER 5

king’s subsequent question: “who is he and where is he who dares to do this?” (7:5) is a person rather than a circumstance.18 The participle ‫ ׁשֹוֶ ה‬comes from the verb ‫ ׁשוה‬which appears twice in the Meghillah. In its two other occurrences, the verb ‫ ׁשוה‬is accompanied by the preposition ‫ ל‬and is translated as “to be suitable, fitting, of value”. The first time ‫ ׁשוה ל‬is used, Haman advises the king that the Jews are not suitable for his kingdom (3:8), whilst on the second occasion he tells his wife and his friends that all the honours he is receiving are of no value while Mordecai is still alive (5:13). In 7:4, however, the root ‫ ׁשוה‬is accompanied by the preposition ‫ב‬19 meaning “to be comparable with”.20 Esther says that the enemy is not comparable with the harm that would be caused if the Jews disappeared. Therefore, keeping the enemy and losing the Jews would mean that the empire would fall short of a working force and of a people whose total allegiance is with the king. This subtle reasoning precipitates the final solution of the scene. The hapax ‫ נֵ זֶ ק‬creates interpretative problems. Fox translates it as “be worth, equivalent to, justify” because in his view it refers to the monetary transaction offered by Haman and the economic loss suffered by the empire.21 With Bush we interpret ‫ נֵ זֶ ק‬as “trouble, annoyance” because of its connection with the Aramaic root ‫נזק‬, “to harm” (Ezra 4:13.15.22), “to be troubled, annoyed” (Dan 6:3).22 In this way, Esther is saying that she has the king’s best interests at heart. In Esth 7:4 she speaks on the one hand about “I and my people” and on the other of the king’s well-being. Esther is therefore interested in the good of the monarch whose reply should involve the security of Esther and of her people. If the interpretation given to ‫ ָצר‬, ‫ ׁשֹוֶ ה‬and ‫ נֵ זֶ ק‬is correct, this verse is quite ironical because as Berlin rightly points out: “Esther is making light of the hypothetical bondage that, if it were true, would constitute treason against the king, and would certainly merit troubling him about”.23

18   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 100; cf. T.K. Beal, Esther, 90; C.A. Moore, Esther, 70. Both Targum Rishon and Targum Sheni also translate ‫ צר‬as “enemy”. LXX also translated it as “enemy”: “οὐ γὰρ ἄξιος ὁ διάβολος τη̑ ς αὐλη̑ ς του̑ βασιλϵ́ως” (“the enemy is not worth the king’s quarters”). 19  The expression ‫ ׁשוה ב‬appears in the biblical corpus only in Prov 3:15 and 8:22. 20  Cf. Clines, VIII, 299. 21   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 282; cf. T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 112; A. Berlin, Esther, 68. 22   F.W. Bush, Esther, 427. 23  A. Berlin, Esther, 68.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

159

1.1.2 The Repetition of ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬in Verse 5 Most of the versions (LXX, A-Text, Vulgate) simplify the double reading of ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬and reproduce a single occurrence. Among the commentators who keep this doubling, there are different opinions: it is considered a “dittography”,24 a mistake25 or even an indicator of how upset and angry the king is that he cannot make sense of his own words.26 Moreover, it is not clear whether the versions are witnesses to a different Hebrew Vorlage or their authors only simplified the text at hand. Some commentators point out that in A-Text there are two speeches from the king. These might have been preserved in the proto-MT, even though the editor of the MT wanted to save only one of them.27 According to us this view is rather hypothetical. A more plausible solution instead can be proposed from similar doublings in Gen 22:7; 46:2; 2 Sam 24:17 and Ezek 10:2. In all these verses repetitions appear as an acceptable idiom which controls the pace of the verse.28 Therefore, a voluntary repetition of ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬might be used to slow down the speed of the narration, add solemnity to the account and create suspense.29 Suspense, though, does not refer to the one Ahasuerus is addressing30 but to what the king’s response will be to Esther’s revelation and how Haman will be unmasked as the ultimate perpetrator of the conspiracy against all the Jews. 1.2 Translation 1 And then the king and Haman went to celebrate31 with Esther the queen. 2 And the king again asked Esther on the second day at the banquet: “What is your request, O queen Esther, so that it may be granted to you?32 What is your wish even half of the kingdom, so that it may be done?”. 3 And queen Esther answered saying: “If I have found favour in your eyes, O king and if it pleases the king, let my life be granted to me as my request and my people’s as my wish. 4 Because I, together with my people, have been sold to be annihilated, to be 24   C.A. Moore, Esther, 71. 25  G. Gerleman, Esther, 121. The Targum Sheni adds that “King Xerxes said to his interpreter and the interpreter said to Queen Esther” (B. Grossfeld, The Two Targum, 178). 26  Cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 102–103. 27  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 113. 28   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 283; cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 197. 29   F.W. Bush, Esther, 429; cf. A. Berlin, Esther, 68. 30   C.A. Moore, Esther, 71. 31  The infinitive ‫ ִל ְׁשּתֹות‬literally means “to drink” and should be considered a denominative from ‫“ ִמ ְׁש ֵּתה‬banquet” (cf. 1 Kgs 22:12; Job 1:4), cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 257; C.A. Moore, Esther, 69. 32  The jussive depending on an interrogative expresses intention, cf. GK §109f.

160

CHAPTER 5

killed and to be destroyed.33 If we had been sold as man-servants and maidservants, I would have kept silent because the enemy could not be compared with annoying the king”. 5 And king Ahasuerus said and asked queen Esther: “Who is he and where is he who dares to do this?34” 6 And Esther replied “The adversary and the enemy is this evil Haman!” at which, Haman was terrified in the presence of the king and the queen. 7 The king rose in his anger from the banquet and went to the garden of the citadel while Haman stood to beg for his life from queen Esther because he saw that evil had been decreed about him by the king. 8 Then the king returned from the citadel’s garden to the reception hall whilst Haman had fallen35 upon the couch on which Esther was lying. And the king said: “Do you mean to rape36 the queen while I am in the house?” As the words came out from the king’s mouth, Haman’s face was covered.37 9 And Harbonah, one of the king’s assistants, also said: “Behold the gallows Haman has erected for Mordecai, who had spoken well on account of the king, and which are standing in Haman’s house and are 50 cubits-high. And the king replied: “Hang him upon it!”. 10 And they hanged Haman upon the gallows which he had erected for Mordecai and the king’s anger subsided. 1.3 The Greek Versions Both Greek versions have an account of Esther’s second banquet and, in essence they provide the same information as the Masoretic text.38 We shall proceed to review some of the variations among the versions which might shed

33   ‫ּול ַא ֵּבד‬ ְ ‫ ְל ַה ְׁש ִמיד ַל ֲהרֹוג‬are active infinitive constructs with passive meaning, cf. JM §124t; Waltke – O’Connor, 36.2.1f. 34  Literally “who has filled his heart (‫ ) ְמ ָלאֹו ִלּבֹו‬to do so”. The form is probably under the influence of Aramaic (JM §78j) and thus the direct object of the verb is anticipated by the pronominal suffix. The verb should be understood as qal perfect and “the heart” as the object of the verb (cf. F.W. Bush, Esther, 423). 35   ‫ נ ֵֹפל‬is a participle with the value of a past tense, cf. JM § 121f. When the qatal and the participle are combined, the first action is instantaneous, while the second is durative, cf. JM § 166h. 36  The predicative use of the infinitive construct expresses a modal or imminent sense (F.W. Bush, Esther, 430). 37  The subject of the plural verb ‫ ָחפּו‬is unknown. Instead of “someone” or “they” this sentences are often translate as passive cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 203. 38  Cf. A three-column comparison of the texts in the original languages can be found in K.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther, appendix 1. For an English comparison of Esth 7:1–8 in all three versions, see L.M. Day, Three Faces of a Queen, 116–119. For an Italian synopsis of the different variants see A. Minissale, Ester, 274–276.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

161

light on our comprehension of MT Esth 7:1–10.39 For instance, the eunuch protagonist of our text is called Harbonah in MT, Bougathan in LXX and Agathas in A-Text.40 Moreover, some of the divergences between the Masoretic text and LXX can be explained by misunderstandings on the part of the Greek editors or even emendations provided in order to make the text clearer. For example, the impersonal plural ‫“( ָחפּו‬they covered [Haman’s face]”, 7:8) becomes a middle third person singular διετράπη τῷ προσώπῳ (“he changed his countenance”) which interprets the rather cryptic Hebrew form. Further differences affect the description of the characters. For instance, LXX avoids the mention of the king getting angry when he goes out to the garden (7:7) thus making his decisions less driven by the passion of wrath. Haman seems more evil because he is described by Esther as not being worthy to stay in the king’s palace (LXX 7:4). He also appears as “entreating the queen” when he falls upon her couch (LXX 7:8). Despite all the minor differences between LXX and the Masoretic text, our pericope is not changed substantially. Arriving at chapter 7, the A-text departs drastically from LXX and MT by adding 116 verses to the text. Some of these additions result in altering the way the characters are portrayed. For instance, the king is seized by his anger when he speaks (AT 7:5.9) and when he decides to kill Haman, even before the eunuch’s suggestion (AT 7:11). The monarch provides an excuse for his decision, namely, that Esther and Mordecai are Jews (AT 7:14). Esther speaks at length highlighting the role of God in her courageous act of denouncing Haman (AT 7:2.6–8) whilst the Agagite comes to the banquet on his own and is described as a liar and a friend of the king (AT 7:8). In this way the A-text changes the characterisation of Ahasuerus, Esther and Haman.41 2

Literary Analysis

2.1 Delimitation As discussed above42 chapter 7 should be treated as an episode delimitated by the same place, and time span of a banquet.43 Even though there is no 39  Esth 7:1–5 is studied by Juha Pakkala, cf. J. Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted, 328–331. He discover that the most significant change is 7:4b which has been largely rewritten in LXX. 40  For other variants in the Greek text, see R. Hanhart, Esther, 184. 41  Cf. A. Minissale, Ester, 192–193. 42  Chapter 3 §1.1.1. 43  Cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 13; F.W. Bush, Esther, 422–434; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 99–106; J. Vílchez, Ester, 325–333; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 82–89; H.M. Wahl,

162

CHAPTER 5

formal marker at its beginning, the change of scenery from Haman’s house to the queen’s apartments and the new cast are enough elements to support this choice. Chapter 8 begins with ‫ ַּבּיֹום ַההּוא‬, an expression which creates a formal break with the preceding chapter. A further dividing element between Esth 7:1–10 and 8:1 is the presence in chapter 8 of Mordecai who is absent from the queen’s party in chapter 7. From the point of view of content 7:1–10 describes Esther’s second banquet and the episode comes to an end when the meal is over. One of the main characteristics of the feast is the enragement of the king when he hears about Haman’s plans to destroy the Jews and how they affect Esther. As a result of the king’s decisions his wrath ceases and thus the literary unit concludes when his anger subsides. 2.2 Setting For the reader of the Meghillah the content of Esth 7:1–10 is expected and welcome. The episode is formally linked with the previous chapter by a wayyiqtol while the formula ‫“( ַּבּיֹום ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬on the second day”) implies that there was a first day with a corresponding banquet (5:5–8). At both meals Esther and Ahasuerus speak to each other and the king repeats a question to his wife. Esther’s formal request addressed to the king, ‫ל־ה ֶ ּ֖מ ֶלְך טֹוב‬ ַ ‫ם־ע‬ ַ ‫וא‬ ִ (“if it pleases the king”), is reminiscent of previous encounters with the king (1:19; 3:9; 5:4.8). The gibbet reminds us of its building (5:14) and the officials’ fate at the king’s gate once their conspiracy had been uncovered (2:23). Further, the unreal conditional clause in 7:4 is similar to the one used in 4:16b.44 All four characters mentioned by name in Esth 7:1–10 are known to the reader. Harbonah,45 who made a speech in chapter 1, links our passage with the story of Vashti’s deposition. In both cases the disappearance of the offenders, Vashti and Haman, results in the appeasement of the king (2:1; 7:10) and their replacement by the Jewish heroes of the story: Esther and Mordecai.

Das Buch Esther, 146–156; A. Minissale, Ester, 183–194; Paton divides the pericope into two sections: 6:14–7:6 and 7:7–10 (L.B. Paton, Esther, 257–267; cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 68–74; J. Grossman, Esther, 156–169). Others instead make 7:1–8:2 a unit (cf. L.M. Day, Esther, 117–129; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 48–53); for Gerleman 6:14–8:2 is an episode (G. Gerleman, Esther, 120–124, esp. 121). 44  Esth 4:16b: “After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish (‫”)וְ ַכ ֲא ֶׁשר ָא ַב ְד ִּתי ָא ָב ְד ִּתי‬. 45  Harbonah is to be considered the same as in 1:10 even though there is a slightly different spelling of the name: ‫( ַח ְרבֹונָ א‬1:10) as opposed to ‫( ַח ְרבֹונָ ה‬7:9).

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

163

Chapter 7 shares a similar vocabulary with the rest of the Meghillah. For example, the triad of verbs from Haman’s decree are used also in Esther’s speech (‫“ ְל ַה ְׁש ִמיד ַל ֲהרֹוג ְּול ַא ֵּבד‬to be annihilated, to be killed and to be destroyed”, cf. 3:13; 8:11). Other examples providing a further connection with the rest of the story are the verb ‫( חרׁש‬4:14; 7:4) and the noun ‫( נפׁש‬4:14; 7:3.7; 8:11; 9:16.31). 2.3 Structure The structure we propose for Esth 7:1–10 respects the narrative character of this chapter,46 namely, an exposition: (7:1–2a), complication (7:2b–5), turning point (7:6–8), denouement (7:9–10a) and the final situation (7:10). In the exposition (7:1–2a) the narrator describes the characters and the reason for their coming together at the queen’s apartments. This introduction is followed by the complication (7:2b–5) in the form of a dialogue between Esther and Ahasuerus. The complication has been prepared by the preceding chapters in which Esther had refused to put her desire into words. After some delay, Esther finally expresses the difficulty that must be resolved. The queen’s rhetoric creates an even more dramatic tension leading to the king’s question about the one responsible for such an evil, and Esther’s revelation of Haman’s involvement in the plot against the Jews. Esther’s disclosure creates the turning point of the account (7:6–8), producing a diversity of reactions in the different characters: anger in the king and fear in Haman. Interestingly, these verses alternate emphasis between the king and Haman who become the subjects of the verbs in turn. The Agagite’s death appears as the denouement of the pericope (7:9–10a) which opens the way to the final situation, namely, the appeasement of the king (7:10b). The final situation is reached thanks to the intercession of Harbonah who had not featured in this pericope until 7:9 but who is known to the reader as one of the Persian eunuchs sent by the king to fetch queen Vashti (cf. 1:10).

46  In Vialle’s narrative structure 8:1–2 is included in this episode (C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 49). Fox arranges the passage into three parts: the accusation or Esther’s plea for her life (7:1–6); the deliberation or Haman’s plea for his life (7:7) and the sentencing or Haman’s loss of his life (7:8–10) (M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 88). Taking into account the dialogues of the pericope, Bush divides 7:1–10 into three ‘episodes’ (7:2–6a; 7:6b–8b; 8c–9) with an introduction (7:1) and a conclusion (7:10) (F.W. Bush, Esther, 425). Beal proposes a bi-partite division: a dialogue between the king and Esther (7:1–8a) and an action involving the king and Haman (7:8b–10) (T.K. Beal, Esther, 87–88); Vílchez instead suggests the following division: an introduction (7:1); the dialogue between the king and the queen (7:2–6); the king’s decision that Haman should be hanged (7:7–9) and the execution of the command (7:10) (J. Vílchez, Esther, 326).

164

CHAPTER 5

In chapter 7, Harbonah’s function is to indicate the gallows and to link this pericope with chapter 1. Our structure highlights the role of Esther in the events. Both by her words and her silence, she leads Haman to his end. Through her behaviour, Esther sets the salvation of the Jewish people in motion. She is addressed by Ahasuerus as “the queen”. It is worth noting that this epithet appears more often in 7:1–10 than anywhere else in the Meghillah,47 showing the consolidation of Esther’s position in the royal court and the importance of her relationship with Ahasuerus. Harbonah’s function is highlighted too. While in chapter 1, he could not bring Vashti to the king’s presence causing her to fall, in 7:1–10 he leads Haman to his final fate by both fetching him and by pointing out the gibbet. 3

The Banquet Motif

Timothy Beal encapsulates the relationship between feasting and violence in the Meghillah as follows: “The amount of blood spilled in the story [of Esther] is matched only by the amount of wine poured”.48 Set in the Persian court, our book highlights the importance of banquets and wine consumption.49 We intend now to summarise some of the views on banquets and drinking in classical sources50 and in the biblical corpus which might shed light on our 47   L.M. Day, Three Faces of a Queen, 133. 48   T.K. Beal, Esther, xvi. 49  Cf. S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 31–57; cf. chapter 1 §4.1. 50  Interest in eating and drinking in antiquity has increased in recent years from sociological and anthropological perspectives. For example, see P. Schmitt Pantel, La cité au banquet. For a quick review of some recent studies see A. Brenner – J.W. van Henten, “Our Menu”, ix–xiii. Brenner and van Henten wrote an introduction to issue 86 of Semeia dedicated to food and drink in the biblical worlds. It is also worth consulting the proceedings of two conferences on the same topic in the Ancient Near Eastern world held in Rome and Venice respectively, L. Milano, ed., Drinking in Ancient Societies; C. Grottanelli – L. Milano, eds., Food and Identity in the Ancient World. See also L. Milano, ed., Mangiare divinamente. These volumes study the meaning of drinking and eating within the sacrificial system in different Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Several of the articles discuss the prohibition of eating certain types of meat and how these dietary regulations set apart different ethnic groups. See also C. Shafer-Elliot, Food in Ancient Judah and J.-M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet. For a study of wine in the context of the Ancient Near East, its origins among the different people, the ways of production, some of the myths associated with it, the common biblical vocabulary and some of its uses both in common life and in worship, see D. Ruiz López, “El vino en el antiguo oriente bíblico”, 373–387. For further exploration, the

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

165

research. We will focus on those instances in which banquets and violence are connected.51 3.1 Eating and Drinking in Classical Sources From archaeological finds we know that eating and drinking were an important element of the social and ritual life of ancient societies.52 Persians were not an exception. In fact, archaeologists have discovered several reliefs of banquets, connected mainly with funeral art.53 The importance of food and drink as way of controlling their subjects is shown in the representations on the staircase at the Apadana and Darius I’s palaces.54 The description of this foodstuff which was served at court can be found in the Persepolis Tablets55 and is also corroborated by classical authors.56 From written sources we know how important feasting in classical times was and how Greek and Persian meals proceeded. The royal Persian feasts were surrounded by luxury,57 exalting the might and generosity of the king,58 and expressed his dominion over his subjects because the meals were prepared with the products of the empire.59 One of the most important moments of these events was the drinking party or symposion60 that usually followed papers presented at a symposium on wine and oil production in the Mediterranean basin are published in M.-C. Amouretti – J.-P. Brun, eds., La production du vin et l’huile. 51  Cf. J.-D. Macchi, “Le livre d’Esther: regard hellénistique sur le pouvoir”, 114–116. 52   J.B. Pritchard, “Winery, Defenses, and Soundings”, 1–27; A. Rainey, “Wine from Royal Vineyard”, 57–62. 53  Cf. some examples: the grave stele from Çavuşköyü and the Satrap Sarcophagus kept in the Istanbul museum depict banqueting scenes (C.G. Starr, “Greeks and Persians”, plate X and VII; J.-M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet, 277–282); the Aksakal Stele from the Istambul Museum (no. 5763, H. Metzger, “Sur deux groups” plate III). The Ödemis relief in a two-level composition relates a banquet to a hunting scene (J.M. Metzger, “Reliefs au ‘Banquets’ ”, 196; J.-M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet, 265–268) whereas the Daskyleion stele depicts a funeral entourage in relation to a banquet (J.M. Metzger, “Reliefs au ‘Banquets’ ”, 201; J.-M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet, 271–278). 54   E.F. Schmidt, Persepolis, 228 and plates 27–49. 156; Cf. Herodotus, The Histories, 7:119. 55  P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 302; cf. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Persian Food”, 292–296. 56  Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VIII 8:16. 57  Cf. P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 307–309 for a description of the cups and utensils used at the king’s table; cf. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VIII 8:10. 58  P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 258. Cf. Xenophon, Cyropedia, 8:3.33–34; 4:1; Herodotus, The Histories, 1:132. 59  H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Persian Food”, 298. 60  Herodotus, The Histories, 1:133: “The Persians are extremely fond of wine” (cf. 3:34).

166

CHAPTER 5

the meal and during which important matters were discussed.61 The excesses of the Persian court at banqueting, eating and drinking are also described in Greek sources.62 These descriptions, however, should be treated with caution since Greeks spoke of themselves as particularly sober in comparison to the Persians who were considered drunkards to the point of taking important decisions while being inebriated.63 Banquets pervade the whole of Persian society and activities. We know that Persians celebrated birthdays with a banquet.64 The sources also attest that the preparation of meals was taken into consideration as part of the military campaigns during which the king’s kitchen staff followed the army.65 Moreover, some other Persian banquets were linked with religious practices including sacrifices which preceded the meal and were consumed at the communal table.66 According to classical sources, banquets were places of untold violence.67 In certain circumstances hosts would get the enemy drunk in order to kill him.68 Conversely, custom made the table a place for the redistribution of goods and the context in which favour was shown towards faithful servants.69 Finally,

61  J.-D. Macchi, “L’identité judéenne”, 233. Cf. Strabo, Geography, XV, 3:20: “[The Persians] carry on their most important deliberations when drinking wine; and they regard decisions then made as more lasting than those made when they are sober”. 62  Herodotus, The Histories, 9:80: “[In the Persian camp the Spartans] found pavilions hung with gold and silver decorations, couches overlaid with gold and silver, various kinds of golden vessels, including bowls and cups; they found carts laden with sacks which turned out to contain gold and silver pots”; cf. N. MacDonald, Not Bread Alone, 205–211. Cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 36: “[In the book of Esther], banqueting has been presented to us as the Persian pastime par excellence”. 63  Herodotus, The Histories, 1:133: “It is usual for them to be drunk when they are debating the most important issues”. 64  Herodotus, The Histories, 1:133; 9:110. 65  P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 304–305. Cf. Herodotus, The Histories, 1:126. 66  Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VIII 3:33–34; 4:1. Cf. P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 252–265 for a description of the religious practices of the Persians. 67  Herodotus, The Histories, 1:118–119. King Astyage, Cyrus’ grandfather, took revenge on Harpage his servant by killing the latter’s son and serving him as part of the meal; Cyrus kicked his pregnant wife at a banquet causing her to have a miscarriage resulting in her own death (Herodotus, The Histories, 3:32). 68  Herodotus, The Histories, 1:106; 5:20. Xerxes II was murdered when he was completely drunk, cf. Ctesias, Persica, F15, 48. 69  Herodotus, The Histories, 9:110; cf. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Persian Food”, 296–297.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

167

meals were also the place where internal fights came to the fore, and likewise were a place of judgement.70 3.2 Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament The Old Testament uses the images of wine and banquets in different contexts and with a diversity of meanings.71 A meal is a sign of hospitality (Gen 19:3) and a celebration of important family (Gen 21:8; 29:22; 40:20; Judg 14:10– 20). Banquets and wine offerings are part of religious practices (Gen 14:18; Ps 116:12–13; Hos 9:4; cf. Ezra 3:5; 1 Kgs 3:15; Isa 62:8–9), celebrate social events (Job 1:4–5; 1 Kgs 8:65–66), and describe eternal bliss in prophetic literature (Isa 25:6–8). Banquets and drinking feasts are also places where social injustice is manifested (Amos 2:8; 6:6–7)72 and one of the images of divine punishment (Isa 51:17.21–22; 63:1–6; Jer 16:5–9; Ezek 39:17–21). Jewish table regulations together with the celebration of the Sabbath and the practice of circumcision were marks of identity setting the Jewish people apart from the other nations. Most probably, the dietary rules became more firmly established in the exilic period when eating and drinking became a further mark of ethnicity as described in different Diasporanovellen (Dan 1; Jdt 12:19; Tob 1:10–11).73 Moreover, the final codification of the dietary rules must have occurred in the context of the Hellenistic attacks on Israelite culture during the time of the Maccabees.74 In the Old Testament, banquets are one of the Sitzen im Leben of violence. For example, Pharaoh exercises his justice with his chief baker and chief cup 70  N. MacDonald, “Food and Drink”, 172: “The feast is the context for a cryptic condemnation and subsequent punishment”. 71  For a study of the vocabulary for vineyards in Hebrew, Greek and Latin see, J.P. Brown, “The Mediterranean Vocabulary”, 146–170; for a description of vineyards and wine producing in the Old Testament, see M. Broshin, “Wine in Ancient Palestine”, 21–34; J.A. Sasson, “The Blood of Grapes”, 399–419. Romano Penna makes a comparison among the classical authors and the New Testament writings (with some mention of Old Testament literature) on the topic of wine, cf. R. Penna, “Il vino e le sue metafore”, 41–71; cf. also N. MacDonald, What did the Ancient Israelites Eat?, 22–24. 72  While in the prophetic texts (Isa 5:11–12; Amos 6:4–6) the writers denounce the unjust behaviour of the Israelites, the critique expressed by Esther and other Diaspora novellas ridicule the excesses of the non-Israelites in order to encourage the fidelity of the Jews. 73  N. MacDonald, “Food and Drink”, 168–169; cf. M.E. Mills, “Household and Table”, 413. 74  N. MacDonald, Not Bread Alone, 203: “No doubt many observant Jews in the Second Temple period kept to the dietary restrictions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but it is only in a Hellenistic environment and, in particular, through the Maccabean crisis that the dietary laws become such important touchstones of Jewish identity”.

168

CHAPTER 5

bearer by executing the former and restoring the latter to his position at his birthday party (Gen 40:20–24). Samson takes vengeance against the Philistines in the context of a meal in which he kills all his enemies when they were merry with wine (Judg 16:23–31). King Elah was murdered while attending a banquet and drinking wine (1 Kgs 16:8–10) whilst Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar after eating from her hand (2 Sam 13:1–14). Another death accusation related to eating is Naboth’s condemnation for blasphemy due to his supposed nonobservance of a fast. He is unjustly condemned and stoned to death (1 Kgs 21:8–14). Further, Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, shows his disrespect at table by abusing the sacred vessels from the Jerusalem temple during a banquet with the nobles of his people. God condemns him and the monarch subsequently dies as a consequence of his impiety at the preceding feast (Dan 5:1–30). These and other examples show that there is a close relationship between meals and violence. At times such actions are part of the enactment of judgement in the biblical context.75 The Old Testament also describes wine as part of the staple diet (Deut 29:5; Neh 5:15.18; Lam 2:12; 2 Chr 11:11) and a cause of joy (Qoh 9:7; Prov 31:6–7),76 even though Scripture warns its readers about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption (Prov 23:20–21; Sir 31:27). Drunkenness is expressed by the phrase ‫( טֹוב ֵלב‬Judg 16:25; 2 Sam 13:28; Esth 1:10; 5:9; Prov 15:15; Qoh 2:3) and brings those who suffer it to dishonour themselves (Gen 9:20–22) or to behave in a manner contrary to God’s law (Gen 19:30–38; cf. 2 Sam 11:13). On the other hand, abstinence from wine is a characteristic of consecration to the Lord (Num 6:1–21; Ezek 44:21) because wine inflames the heart, procures a curse for the person who drinks too much (Isa 5:11),77 obscures his or her mind (Hos 4:11) and overwhelms him or her (Jer 23:9). Intemperance in drinking impairs judgement (Isa 28:7; Prov 20:1) and leads to wailing (Jer 25:16; Joel 1:5), vociferous behaviour (Prov 20:1; Zech 9:15), becoming sick (Isa 19:14; 28:18; Jer 25:27; 48:26) and falling down (Jer 25:27). Additionally, excessive consumption of alcohol might result in violent behaviour and death.78 This is the case with Nabal who denied David help and who died afterwards while still under the influence of wine (1 Sam 25:36–38). 75  Cf. N. MacDonald, Not Bread Alone, 166–195. 76  Cf. R. Penna, “Il vino e le sue metafore”, 46–48. 77  According to the Jewish tradition, an excess of alcohol would have produced the death of Nadab and Abihu when they approach the altar of God inebriated in Lev 10, cf. A.J. Wolak, “Alcohol and the Fate”, 222–225. 78  This is also corroborated by psychology, see Cf. P.R. Robbins, Anger, Aggression and Violence, 117–125.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

169

Alcohol abuse also induces violence, as in the story of Absalom who took revenge on his half-brother Amnon while he was drunk because the latter had raped Absalom’s sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:28–29).79 However, alcohol consumption can result in the good of people, as in the case of Ruth who was chosen by Boaz after he had drunk heavily (Ru 3:7–13). Death is also dealt to drunken individuals after a banquet in the stories of Jael and Judith who killed Sisera and Holofernes in their own tents after the males became drunk. Jael and Judith use their beauty as a first weapon and lure these enemies of the Jews into sure death.80 Both women have an active part in the death of their foes be it by driving the tent peg into Sisera’s temple or cutting off Holofernes’ head respectively. In both stories the woman offers something to eat or drink to the man who trusts in her female kindness. In both accounts, the trust turns out to be the cause of the warrior’s downfall. 3.3 Eating and Drinking in the Book of Esther Banquets are the main activity of our book since every decisive event takes place in the context of a meal.81 The main focus of these banquets is on wine consumption (1:7.10; 5:6; 7:2.7.8). This matter is so important that it becomes the subject of a royal restriction on how much wine can be consumed (1:8).82 Esther is shown sitting at table with the king and Haman on several occasions (2:18; 5:5–8; 7:1–10), even though there is no mention of solid food at all in the whole account.83 This absence could be explained as a redactional choice to safeguard Jewish sensitivities to kashrut.84 The idea that eating at the king’s table creates an apparent problem is supported by the prayer inserted by the 79   D.G. Firth, “When Samuel met Esther”, 23: “In both instances [Nabal’s and Amnon’s], the individual whose heart was merry from alcohol made a foolish decision, a decision that led to their downfall”. 80   J.A. Loader, “The Dark Side of Beauty”, 339. 81   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 156: “The book opens with a banquet, the denouement occurs at a banquet, and the crisis eventuates in a perennial banquet”. Cf. P. Abadie, La reine masquée, 63–67. 82   F.W. Bush, Esther, 349. 83  The root ‫“( אכל‬to eat”) in the Meghillah only appears as a negation of eating when Esther asks her people to fast for three days on her behalf (4:16). In this way, fasting is used as an auxiliary theme in order to contrast all the feasting in the Meghillah. In 4:16, though, the nature of the fast Esther requires from her people is not clear. It would seem that it is a sign of mourning since Esther and the people are preparing for a sure death. This depriving of food characterises the Jewish people as a body which is obedient to the desire of their leaders (cf. S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 37–39). 84  J.-D. Macchi, “L’identité judéenne”, 247.

170

CHAPTER 5

Greek editors. As she prays, Esther makes excuses for her appearing at the royal table and sharing it with the Persians: “And your handmaid has not eaten at the table of Haman, and I have not honoured the banquet of the king, neither have I drunk wine of libations” (LXX C:28). However, the author of the Hebrew text situates the Jewish protagonists of our story at the royal table because he realises that partaking in the banquet will help them attain the salvation of their Jewish compatriots, which is their ultimate goal. Esther prepares two banquets in order to attain her target.85 The speeches between Esther and Ahasuerus at both banquets are similar but not identical. Through their comparison we can highlight how the relationship between the royal couple is differently portrayed. Esther’s first banquet was prepared for the king (‫ לֹו‬5:4) whilst her second banquet is set to honour the king and Haman (‫ ָל ֵהם‬5:8). The comparison between both speeches will be enlarged in the commentary section of this chapter. By the end of the second feast, when the queen decides to “honour” him by denouncing his treachery, Haman becomes the protagonist.86 In this way the first banquet is “more general and less conclusive” and the second “more focused and climactic”.87 Both Ahasuerus’ second banquet in chapter 1 and Esther’s second feast in chapter 7 result in the disempowerment of someone.88 In the king’s second banquet Vashti is degraded and is dispossessed of her dignity while in Esther’s second banquet Haman is stripped off his command and his life.89 Both banquets are further linked linguistically by the use of the verb ‫ ׁשכך‬when describing how the king’s anger is abated (2:1; 7:10). Hence the banquet is the place of both the arousal of anger and its appeasement. Similar to Jael and Judith, Esther uses her beauty as a weapon to kill the enemy of the Jews in the context of a meal.90 In contrast to the stories of Jael and Judith who employ a physical instrument to kill their victims, Esther’s attacking device is her speech. Her words entice Haman to come to the party

85  J.-D. Macchi, “L’identité judéenne”, 253. 86   S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 34. 87   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 6. 88  K. Graig, Reading Esther, 67. 89  J.-D. Macchi, “L’identité judéenne”, 237: “Le banquet devient un lieu privilégié de récompense et de punition et l’invitation et la place à la table du roi rend compte de l’organisation sociale du royaume et de la stratification qui le caractérise”. 90  Other than her own qualities, Esther does not possess any other weapon or supernatural power. As Isabel Gómez Acebo writes: “Si el hijo de Jacob [Jose] tenía poderes sobranaturales que le permitían interpretar los sueños, Ester sólo cuenta en el TM con sus cualidades humanas” (I. Gómez Acebo, “Personajes femeninos”, 34.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

171

and convince her husband to condemn the Agagite.91 Both Sisera and Haman request protection from Jael and Esther and instead of being nurtured by them, both men meet death.92 Further, Esther works within the realms of the palace and in a public space (the banqueting hall) in order to accomplish her task whereas Jael and Judith work within the privacy of a tent detaching themselves from the pagans they kill.93 In all three instances the male subject is passive, either because he is asleep (Sisera and Holofernes) or because he is silent, as in the case of Haman. 4 Commentary Esther invited the king and his vizier to two different banquets in order to show up Haman’s pretentions (5:4–8; 7:1–10). At both parties, the Agagite was treated like royalty confirming the view he had of himself. Between these two banquets, Haman went to visit Ahasuerus and the Agagite’s inner self is revealed to the reader of the Meghillah. Haman thought that Ahasuerus wanted to honour him when he asked him what should be done to the person whom the king wanted to honour (6:6). Thus, when Haman described the honour which should be given to such a person, he provides that individual with the imperial garb and pomp (6:7–9), showing to the reader what the Agagite thought about himself. Having created the expectations of a higher promotion in Haman and partially in the readership, the author highlights the Agagite’s greater fall. In 7:1–10 Esther’s intelligence is manifested during her second banquet. Described with the traits of classical Greek heroes, she shows her argumentative skills and her determination to fulfil the seemingly impossible task of saving her nation, even if she has to show herself pitiless. It is during the banquet in chapter 7 that Esther begins to fulfil her mission for the good of her people.94 This is a fitting contrast because the downfall of the Jews was saluted at a drinking party (3:14) and ironically it is in the same context that Haman’s end is decreed.

91   N.W. Duran, Having Men for Dinner, 78–79: “The purpose of Esther’s banquet is not to kill the king or his advisor but to manipulate the king”, see also pages 80–81. 92  C. Walsh, “Women on the Edge”, 142: “Like Jael, she [Esther] dares to exercise her power in one tactical action in order to benefit all Israel. Her moment of truth and power has come and she is ready for it”. 93   N.W. Duran, Having Men for Dinner, 66. 94  Cf. J.-D. Macchi, “Une héroïne judéenne”, 281–283.

172

CHAPTER 5

4.1 Exposition (7:1–2a) 4.1.1 Invitation to a Party (7:1a) The narrator provides several indicators of the speed with which the scene recounted in 7:1–10 should be read. There is no formal break between the episode at Haman’s house and the events at Esther’s lodgings, leaving Zeresh’s words as an impending prophecy: “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him” (6:13). Then 7:1 is only seven words long and gives the sense of something which is to happen suddenly (cf. 6:14). Further the immediacy of the king’s question “what is your request? What is your wish?” (7:2a) and the way Esther answers—precipitating the king’s reaction and Haman’s fate— push the reader to go through the text frenetically. This haste stands out conspicuously against the delay to which the reader is accustomed. In between the two meals organised by the queen (5:4–8; 7:1–10) the reader is reminded of the reason why the vizier entered into conflict with Mordecai and with all the Jews. Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman (5:9), Haman held two conversations with his wife and his confidents (5:10–14; 6:12– 14) and the king was reminded of Mordecai’s good action when he denounced the two officials’ plot against his life. At the same time Esther’s role on that occasion (6:1–3) is recalled. These examples, together with the suspense and tension created by the delays, work towards the final resolution of the Jewish conflict, thus preparing the reader for a positive attitude towards the Jewish members of the cast. By the time the pre-announced meal comes the reader has been reminded of the plot’s main thrust and knows that banquets are the literary framework for the transforming actions.95 Esth 7:1a first and foremost describes an opportunity given to Ahasuerus and Haman to drink together with the queen at a banquet which preceded the wine feast (‫ ְּב ִמ ְׁש ֵּתה ַהּיַ יִ ן‬7:2) and which was prepared by a hungry Esther.96 This is the third time we read about the king and his vizier drinking together. In the first instance (3:15), Haman had just ordered the couriers to proclaim the edict of extermination and both the king and Haman sat down to celebrate the decree while the city was in commotion. While in 3:15 the two men drink to a pogrom, in 7:1 they are toasting Haman’s death unbeknown to either of them.97 From the reader’s perspective the irony of these instances relies on the fact that, whereas in chapter 3 the king and his vizier toast the destruction of the Jews, in chapter 7 they are endorsing the prosperity of that nation. 95  J.-D. Macchi, “L’identité judéenne”, 243. 96  K. Graig, Reading Esther, 67. 97   H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 148.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

173

4.1.2 Guests at the Party (7:1b–2a) At this meal, Esther appears as the host and is constantly called by her formal title “queen” (7:1.2.3.5.6.7.8). She emerges in a more official capacity than ever before. For example at her first banquet (5:4–8) neither does the narrator introduce Esther with her title nor does the king ever call her in such a way. So Esther’s status in the sight of the king and the narrator changes by the time the second banquet is celebrated, giving her a greater degree of influence. The king begins to see Esther in a different light after he has been reminded of her role in the foiling of the assassination attempt against him (cf. 6:1).98 She has grown into her role since chapter 5 and is now introduced as a member of the Persian royal court.99 Her new status underlines the relationship between the king and his consort and underscores the favour of the monarch towards his wife.100 Queenship is thus described in terms of Esther’s newly-established rapport with the king and her role as an intermediary and the saviour of her people, in this way verifying Mordecai’s words: “who knows? Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for a time such as this” (4:14). On the other hand, not much can be said about Haman. He comes along together with Ahasuerus twice but on neither occasion does the Agagite play an active part in the meal. Even though Haman is present he does not interfere with the dialogue between Ahasuerus and Esther. He is a silent spectator of the royal couple whose relationship grows closer at the same time as Esther’s importance is more clearly manifested.101 As for the Agagite, we only know that his ego is boosted after the first invitation (5:9a) and that neither the king nor the queen address him at all on either occasion. 4.2 Complication (7:2b–5) 4.2.1 Esther’s Appeal: A Preamble and Her Request (7:2b–3) The king leads the conversation and is the first to speak at this meal (7:2) as the action moves quickly by a wayyiqtol chain. His words, however, are delayed by the temporal phrase (“on the second day, at the banquet”) which provides some background information and highlights Ahasuerus’ utterance.102 The 98  Cf. J. Grossman, Esther, 158. 99   L.M. Day, Esther, 118: “This detail of nomenclature makes her character appear more regal, powerful, and authoritative”. 100   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 101. 101  Cf. J. Grossman, Esther, 157. 102  R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 208. The author of Esther postpones some information after a temporal clause elsewhere in the Meghillah (1:2.10; 2:21; 5:1; 8:1; 9:11).

174

CHAPTER 5

king asks a question: “what is your request, O queen Esther so that it may be granted to you. What is your wish, even half of the kingdom, so that it may be done” (7:2). Even though he has already asked twice before (5:6; cf. 5:3) there is a major difference between the three questions. Whereas in 5:6, the verb is ‫וְ יִ ּנָ ֵתן‬, a masculine or neuter third person singular, in 7:2 the verb is ‫וְ ִתּנָ ֵתן‬, a feminine third person singular (7:2). In the first instances the grammatical subject of the question was either something general expressed in the neuter or the “banquet” (‫) ִמ ְׁש ֵּתה‬, which is masculine in Hebrew. Conversely, the enquiry in chapter 7 already anticipates Esther’s answer by referring to the “soul” (‫)נפׁש‬ which is feminine in Hebrew.103 As far as the content of the dialogues is concerned, there are two major differences. First, whereas Esther is simply called by her name in chapter 5 (5:5.6.7) she is presented as “the queen” at the second banquet (7:2.3). In this way she not only appears as part of the persecuted race but she also behaves as a member of the establishment. In this way the narrator in chapter 7 adds a formal touch to her demand underlining her status and power. Second, Esther’s way of addressing the king is different. In 5:8 she requests: “if I have found favour in the sight of the king” while in 7:3b she approaches her husband saying: “if I have found favour in your eyes, O king”. In the first instance the more impersonal third person treatment is used while in the second the king is directly addressed in the second person using a vocative.104 Thus the relationship of the royal couple is described in a different light: from an impersonal form denoting detachment to another symbolising the closer relationship between Esther and Ahasuerus.105 This development is fundamental for the final resolution of the conflict between Haman and all the Jews. The king’s generous offer of “even half of the kingdom” resembles the description given in classical sources of a monarch’s unconditional promise to a woman.106 Ahasuerus’ promise, though, is ambiguous because “even half my kingdom” might refer to material property or to political control. As the story unfolds she receives both since Esther will be given Haman’s household (8:1) and the king will obey her orders (9:12).107 103   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 101. 104  Levenson compares this plea with Moses’ plea on behalf of the Israelites (cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 101). 105   B.D. Estelle, “Esther’s Strategies”, 76. 106  Herodotus, The Histories, 9:109: “She [Artaynte] gave him [Xerxes] pleasure too—so much so that he told her he would give her anything she wanted in return for the favours she had granted him; whatever she asked for, he assured her, she would get”. 107   T.K. Beal, Esther, 88.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

175

At his appeal, the queen gives an answer using a perfect rhetoric in her beautifully constructed request. By combining the formula “if I have found favour in your sight” with “if it pleases the king” she is on a sure path to attaining her wish since everything that has been petitioned from the monarch with that sort of language has been granted (1:21; 2:4; 3:11; 6:10). Further, we know that Esther found favour at Ahasuerus’ eyes (2:17) because of her beauty and therefore the positive outcome to her request is almost sure. In this instance Esther uses her good looks and graciousness to manoeuvre the king at her will.108 By picking up the same terms as the king: “If I have found favour in your eyes, O king and if it pleases the king, let my life be granted to me as my request and my people’s as my wish” (7:3 cf. 7:2), the queen’s petition is intertwined into a finely-wrought discourse.109 Esther’s answer is “life”. The noun ‫ נפׁש‬is used throughout the Scroll in relation to the salvation or perdition of someone’s life. For instance, Mordecai tells Esther: “do not imagine that you will save your life (‫ )נַ ְפ ֵׁשְך‬because you are in the king’s palace” (4:13) while the Jewish people are allowed to defend themselves (‫ וְ ָעמֹד ַעל־נַ ְפ ָׁשם‬8:11; 9:16.31). Similarly in Esth 7:1– 10 both the queen’s request for her life and her people’s and Haman’s entreaty for his deliverance are expressed by the noun ‫נפׁש‬. Esther’s petition is articulated in two stages because she asks for the deliverance of her life and then of her people’s. First and foremost Esther makes a profession of faith by connecting herself with the Jews. Thus her answer has two major consequences for her characterisation. First, Esther associates herself for the first time with the Jewish people, even though she does not mention them by name. Second, she establishes her independence from Mordecai, who previously had banned her from revealing her ethnicity (2:10.20).110 At the same time there is a tension between Esther’s loyalty to the Jewish people and her fidelity to the Persians.111 She exposes herself while somehow withdrawing her identity.112 Esther does not fully express her ethnicity other than professing

108   J.A. Loader, “The Pleasing”, 654. 109  The concatenation of synonyms (for example “wish and request” and “ ‘if I have found favour in your sight’ together with ‘if it is good in your sight’ ”) are examples of courtly language (A. Minissale, Ester, 184). 110  In contrast with Moore, who argues that Esther declares herself a Jew there is no textual evidence that she did so. She speaks of her people but there is no description of who these people are. It is not clear from the text whether the king knew who the people were or not (cf. 8:7). Cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 73. 111   L.M. Day, Esther, 121. 112   J.A. Berman, “ ‘Haddasah bat Abihail’ ”, 663.

176

CHAPTER 5

not to be Persian. In this way she shows that by holding to both the Persian connections and the Jewish nation salvation for the Jews comes about.113 In addition, the queen follows a very clear rhetoric making her reasoning quite dramatic and implicating the king emotionally.114 First, Esther makes use of a deferential vocative (“O king”) since it is not clear what the final result of her courageous plea would be.115 Second, she treads upon the sentimental path. According to our Western mentality Esther seems to break all the norms of politeness by mentioning herself first but she is not selfish at all, instead she shows herself very intelligent.116 By describing herself in trouble and then asking about the Jews she involves the king intimately. It seems clear that hearing of his wife’s troubles would make him more attentive to what follows. It is worth noting she first speaks of “I and my people”, then she goes on to speak in first person plural making a connection between them and her. Even though Esther’s people are not recognised, this might have been the author’s intention. The punch line of this argumentation makes the king not care so much about the Jews as about their relation to Esther. In this way, the king seems to be as ignorant of the Jews as he was when he consented to Haman’s decree. The main difference though between Haman’s edict and Esther’s plea is that by associating herself with her people Esther renders the enterprise more real because those who are to be killed are given a concrete face. Purposely Haman had disembodied the people by calling them “a certain people” (3:8) because it is “easier to kill an abstraction than a person”.117 Esther’s reply is structurally parallel to the previous dialogue between her and the king. Ahasuerus’ utterance had begun with a personal question addressing the queen in the second person and then broadening his view by speaking about the kingdom. Similarly Esther’s words move from the personal (my life) to the general (my people’s) thus including herself in the list of those who would be killed.

113  D. Candido, “Esther’s Family”, 267: “From the narrative as a whole, it is shown that it is precisely this family bond [marriage to Ahasuerus] which constitutes the providential condition that will allow her to intervene for the salvation of all the Jews resident in the kingdom”. 114  A. Minissale, Ester, 184. 115   B.D. Estelle, “Esther’s Strategies”, 66. 116  Similar to Moses’ strategy when interceding for the Jews in Exod 33:16, cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 102. 117   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 48.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

177

4.2.2 Reasons for Esther’s Double Appeal for Life (7:4–5) While uttering her plea, Esther makes a summary of what has been the story so far and what is the main trouble assailing her and her people. Ideas and vocabulary from previous chapters are borrowed in order to describe the story up to that moment. This summary consists of the monetary transaction promised by Haman and refused by the king (3:10), the decree of chapter 3 and the reaction of the Jews in chapter 4 as well as the encouragement received by Esther from Mordecai (4:13–14). Haman’s terminology is used by Esther to describe the fate of the Jews (“to be annihilated, to be killed and to be destroyed”, 7:4; cf. 3:13), directly accusing Haman for the current situation. At the same time the narrator exonerates the king because the verb “to sell” is conjugated in the passive (‫ )נִ ְמ ַּכ ְרנּו‬not directly involving the monarch. Moreover, it should be considered that the verb ‫ מכר‬has an ambiguous meaning because other than a financial transaction, it can also refer to being delivered into the hands of enemies (Lev 25:42; Gen 37:28; Deut 15:12; Judg 2:14; 4:9; cf. Neh 5:8).118 In this way, Haman’s treachery is subtly denounced and he is described as an enemy of the Jews. The conversation between Ahasuerus and Esther is a masterpiece of rhetoric and a show of the queen’s shrewdness.119 Before signing the decree of annihilation, Haman had convinced Ahasuerus that it did not profit the king to tolerate the Jewish people (cf. 3:8). Due to this reason Esther’s speech begins with arguments convincing the king of the profitability of the Jews. Their sale for annihilation would create problems for the finances of the empire.120 The hypothetical scenario of slavery could be acceptable since a slave or bandaka in the Persian terminology was a faithful servant of the king.121 Hence if the first instance comes true and the Jews are destroyed the king will lose not only manpower and taxpayers but also a people of faithful subjects as Mordecai, their leader, has amply demonstrated. By her words, Esther wants to save her life and her people’s by keeping the already confirmed status quo of loyal servants which is, by all means, in the best interests of the Persians. Esther’s speech is based on the assumed transaction whereby Haman had given ten thousand talents of silver into the imperial treasury (3:9) as reported to her by Mordecai (4:7). Even though the king had refused the money, he had agreed to Haman’s decree which carries the royal seal of approval. The queen’s discourse highlights that the only reason for the sale of the Jews is their 118  A. Berlin, Esther, 66. 119   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 88–89; K. Graig, Reading Esther, 83. 120  Cf. W.T. McBride, “Esther Passes”, 217–218. 121  A. Berlin, Esther, 67. For a discussion of the concept of bandaka in Persia, see P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 335–337.

178

CHAPTER 5

destruction. In this way, the past is brought together with the present threat of an uncertain future.122 Mordecai’s words in chapter 4 are called to mind by the presence in 7:4 of the verb ‫“( חרׁש‬to be silent”) which had been used by the Jew as an encouragement for Esther to speak up on behalf of the people (4:14).123 At that point, Mordecai had said to her cousin: “For if you keep silence ( ֘‫יׁשי‬ ִ ‫ם־ה ֲח ֵ ֣רׁש ַּת ֲח ִר‬ ַ ‫ ) ִא‬at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter”. The time to speak has arrived and, by following Mordecai’s advice, Esther’s utterance brings his presence into the act of salvation of the Jews. Rather subtly, Esther changes the content of her discourse by passing from the impersonal passive form ‫“( נִ ְמ ַּכ ְרנּו‬we have been sold”) to the general term ‫“( ַה ָּצר‬the enemy”, 7:4). In this way, she indicates that there is a single individual responsible for the crisis. Esther’s rhetorical device works and the king is now curious to know who is the one responsible for the evil described.124 To add solemnity to this pronouncement the narrator refers to both spouses with their full title (“king Ahasuerus” and “Esther the queen”), detaching Haman from them and making the offense not only a personal affair against a Jewess and her kin but a state affair too.125 Likewise Ahasuerus is presented as the supreme instance of legal and executive power. The king’s question: “who is he and where is he who dares to do this” contains the expression ‫ ְמ ָלאֹו ִלּבֹו‬which could be literally translated as “who has filled his heart” (7:5).126 This expression in the Hebrew Bible can have a negative connotation too. For instance, in Qohelet it refers to the observation made by the sage that the delay in administering justice fills the hearts of people with evil (Qoh 8:11).127 In our case justice has to be administered quickly, even if it entails violent acts, so that evil does not spread in the Persian kingdom. Further, the expression “fill his heart” could be compared with the phrase 122   P.A. Noss, “A Footnote on Time”, 313. 123   J.M. Wiebe, “Will Relief and Deliverance”, 413–415. 124  G. Snyman, “Narrative Rationality”, 185: “In her rhetoric with the king she continues to create a relationship with the king as superior and herself as the subordinate. She knows when to hide her origins and when to reveal them. When she reveals Haman’s plot, she uses her words very cautiously so that the king is not threatened by being exposed as incompetent”. 125   T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 109: “Here the conversation between the royal couple as royal couple suggests a boundary which Haman cannot transgress. The boundary is underscored again in v. 6 when Haman is terrified before ‘the king and the queen’ ”. 126  Cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 198. 127  Qoh 8:11: “Because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men (‫י־ה ָא ָדם‬ ָ ֵ‫ ) ָמ ֵלא ֵלב ְּבנ‬is fully set to do evil”.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

179

“fill a soul” (Exod 15:9) applied to Pharaoh as the enemy whose aim was to destroy the Israelites. In a similar way the fate of God’s people is threatened by a foe comparable with the Egyptian king.128 4.3 Turning Point (7:6–8) 4.3.1 Haman is Discovered (7:6a) The narrator makes the point that the reply to the king’s question is given by Esther and not by “Esther the queen” (7:6). In this way Esther speaks not as the king’s consort but as a Jewess distressed by what is about to happen to her and her people. She only answers the king’s first question without providing a simple name but instead gives a chain of nouns which represent the Jewish point of view. The unmasking of the culprit is prepared by the nouns “enemy” and “adversary”129 and enhanced by the adjective “evil”. In this way she delays the identification of the offender and sets him under a more negative light.130 With the expression “the adversary and the enemy is this evil Haman!” (7:6a) the account reaches its climax from a literary and dramatic point of view.131 This moment had been prepared by the narrator who had described Haman as an enemy (3:10), even though the queen’s accusation makes him an adversary, an evil man and a traitor.132 This characterisation puts the Agagite in contrast with the Jews’ fidelity to the Empire, highlighting that the enemy of the Jews is an enemy of the king too.133 Esther’s words are a quick and concise accusation which does not allow the king or the reader to think that they are anything but true. Syntactically

128   L.M. Day, Esther, 122. 129  Chapter 2 §1.3.2. 130  Cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 199. 131  J. Vílchez, Ester, 329. According to Vílchez, Esther’s statement should be interpreted at the light of Nathan’s words to king David after the latter ordered the assassination of Uriah. The prophet said: “you are that man” (2 Sam 12:7) (J. Vílchez, Ester, 329 n 7; cf. K. Craig, Reading Esther, 118). 132  A. Berlin, Esther, 67. Cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 104: “With Esther’s revelation of the name of her people’s mortal enemy in 7:6, it is now Haman who is being categorized as insubordinate”. 133   T.K. Beal, Esther, 91–92: “The position of the king, too, is radically destabilized: his right hand man is now being presented as his enemy by his queen, who also turns out to be one of those marked for annihilation as the nation’s intolerable other. With a few words of disclosure, Esther has engendered a great deal of ambiguity and tension in the dynamics of relationship within this drinking party, as well as within the larger political scene”. Cf. C.M. Craig, Reading Esther, 116.

180

CHAPTER 5

the queen’s reply is similar to the king’s question:134 two three-word sentences make the accusation more incisive and Haman’s evilness more evident.135 Esther’s final word (7:6) produces a series of reactions which speak eloquently. Once these reactions following Esther’s unveiling of Haman’s plans have started, the following verses (7:6b–8) are structured by an alternating of Haman and the king as main characters. First, Haman is afraid when his plot against the Jews is unexpectedly uncovered in the presence of the king (7:6b “Haman was terrified [‫ ]וְ ָה ָמן נִ ְב ַעת‬before the king and the queen”). Then narrator describes the king’s anger136 (7:7a: “The king rose in his anger from the banquet”) making a comment on how Haman perceives the outbreak of fury (7:7b: “Haman saw that the evil had been decreed about him by the king”). The enragement of the king corresponds to his moving towards the garden whereas Haman’s panic is expressed by his actions of pleading for his life both standing and kneeling before the queen. It seems as if time had been suspended until the king returned and passed his verdict on Haman.137 4.3.2 Haman’s Double Reaction (7:6b–8a) The king’s departure from the banqueting hall has inspired many hypotheses138 which do not respect the narrative vacuum planned by the author. His absence creates suspense and adds to the parody of Ahasuerus as a puppet. The king’s exit indicates that he was troubled by the revelation of Esther’s kinship and the fate of her people because it indicated that he did not know what was going on in his own kingdom. The text, however, does not provide an insight into the king’s mind or against whom the king was angry. The vizier though seems to suspect that the king had decided evil against him (7:7) and hence, as his last chance he throws himself at the feet of the only one who could do something for him.

134   L.B. Paton, Esther, 259: “The two parts of Esther’s answer correspond to the two parts of the King’s question”. 135  Cf. F.W. Bush, Esther, 426–427; L.M. Day, Esther, 122. 136  Prov 16:14 “A king’s wrath is a messenger of death, and a wise man will appease it”. 137  Other interruptions of time occur in 3:15 and in chapter 5. After the couriers have gone through the Empire to deliver Haman’s decree, the king and his vizier drink together (3:15). After Esther’s first banquet (5:5–8) there is another suspension filled in by Haman’s two meetings with his friends and Mordecai’s reward (5:10–14; 6:10–11; 6:12–13). Cf. P.A. Noss, “A Footnote on Time”, 316. 138  For a summary see L.B. Paton, Esther, 262.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

181

Approaching Esther, who is still reclining after the meal,139 Haman performs the following two actions: first of all he stands to plead for his life (7:7) and then he falls down before Esther (7:8).140 These actions convey his readiness to pray and intercede for his life following the patterns found in the Scriptures.141 Moses and Samuel stood before the Lord to intercede (Jer 15:1) whereas Esther falls down to entreat the king (Esth 8:3; cf. 1 Sam 25:24). The participle ‫נ ֵֹפל‬ (“had fallen”) also links our passage with Zeresh’s prophecy that Haman would fall before Mordecai the Jew: “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall (‫ּלֹות ִלנְ ּפֹל‬ ָ ‫) ַה ִח‬, is of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him” (6:13). In that occasion the verb “to fall” (‫ )נפל‬is used as a premonition of what might happen to the Agagite while in 7:8 it is the cause for his final defeat. If the king misinterpreted his vizier’s gesture so drastically, the reader might suppose that he was touching her, a gesture that was not allowed at the Persian court. Moreover, the author uses further irony when he makes Haman fall before Esther, the Jewess. The refusal to bow in the presence of Haman had set the plot in motion (3:1–6) culminating with the lot falling on a particular date (3:7). After Haman is obliged to parade and give honour to Mordecai (6:10–11), the beginning of his end was triggered. Ironically, it is the falling at someone’s feet that will create the end of the complication. It is worth noticing that the verb “to fall” (‫ )נפל‬plays an important role in the development of the story. In a subsequent use ‫ נפל‬recalls the fear that overtakes those who opposed the Jews (8:17; 9:2.3). A similar expression could be hypothesised here because Haman is also the subject of fear at this banquet when he realises his end is near (7:6b). The dramatic features of this scene, combined with the irony of what is happening, make the scene rather comical. Haman falls at the feet of the queen and performs the very act for which he wanted to kill Mordecai, even though this time the actual tripping over produces Haman’s death sentence. In the first instance, Haman tumbles physically upon Esther (7:8) and then figuratively in the presence of Mordecai who takes Haman’s place. The author follows the motif of using a woman as an intercessor.142 The question remains, 139  Cf. Herodotus, The Histories, 9:80.82; Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VIII 8:16. Cf. J.-M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet, 51–69 (especially page 65: “La position couchée au banquet apparaît comme un privilège du roi et de quelques dignitaires détenant une part d’autorité comme les satrapes”). 140   R.E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 166; S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies”, 18. 141  A. Berlin, Esther, 69. 142  This motif is present in the literature contemporary with Esther. Cf. E.J. Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 182.

182

CHAPTER 5

though, as to why Haman begs from the queen and not from the king.143 In so doing, Haman looks idiotic because he has recourse to the one who has accused him of wanting to kill her. Thus the manner of pleading adds two features to the description of Haman present in the Meghillah: first, the scene is made more ironic because Haman is pleading to the person he wanted to kill and, second, Haman’s imploring for his life from Esther amounts to admitting the truth of the queen’s accusation, confessing his guilt and accepting the possible punishment that might come his way.144 When describing Haman’s fall, the author connects by way of the vocabulary Esther’s plea (‫ ) ְּב ַב ָּק ָׁש ִתי‬for the life of her people (7:4) with Haman’s action imploring for his own life (‫ ָע ַמד ְל ַב ֵּקׁש ַעל־נַ ְפׁשֹו‬7:7). After the king’s departure for the garden Haman’s point of view is provided (7:7b “because he saw that the evil had been decreed about him by the king”). Haman’s perspective is quickly changed by what the king saw and how he interpreted it: “do you mean to rape the queen while I am in the house?” (7:8). In this way the reader is invited to make a comparison between both pleas and both points of view. The queen’s request comes from a sense of loyalty to her people whereas the Agagite’s from a feeling of distress. However, Haman’s feelings are interpreted through the eyes of the king, making the vizier’s entreaty another act of asserting his power. In this way Esther’s plea characterises her as a nobler person while Haman’s motivation underlines his selfishness and desire to succeed at any cost. 4.3.3 The Return of the King (7:8b) Upon his return from the garden, Ahasuerus finds Haman on Esther’s couch and the account reaches near to its conclusion in the words of the king. His utterance is expressed by a wayyiqtol and prepared by the series of waw-x-qatals.145 In Ahasuerus’s words, “do you mean to rape the queen while I am in the house?”, several expressions require comment. The verb ‫ כבׁש‬has a primary meaning “to subjugate/subdue”—either the earth (Gen 1:28) or a people (Jer 34:16); in other instances it means “to tread underfoot” (Mic 7:19; Zech 9:15) and “to violate a woman” in our text (Esth 7:8).146 Besides the strong sexual 143   C.D. Harvey, Finding Morality, 63: “Even though the perception of the enemy of the Jews could scarcely have gotten worse, the author chooses to leave his true motives to the imagination of the reader”. 144   H.M. Wahl, “Der Prozess Hamans”, 109. 145  The concatenation of these verbal forms hurries the pace of the narration and adds to the tension of the account, cf. J. Grossman, Esther, 161. 146   H ALOT, 460. In Neh 5:5 the root ‫ כבׁש‬means “becoming slaves” and most probably makes reference to women being raped. All the same, the meaning is the following: being forced into a change of status to a lower shameful state and taking a new master (2 Chr 28:10).

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

183

meaning of assaulting,147 the act of raping has a political connotation as well. The attempt to take the king’s wife or concubine is considered in biblical literature as an act of humiliation of the king and of claiming power over him (2 Sam 3:7; 16:21–22; 1 Kgs 2:15–17.22).148 Considering all these nuances the author grants the king’s word a double sense. First and foremost Ahasuerus thinks of sexual assault even though he might be afraid that Haman would try to take the queen under his power. She had been offered half of the kingdom and the reader knows that Haman’s ambition made him think of himself as equal to the monarch (6:7–9) and thus dominating the queen would be having half of the kingdom under his control as well.149 Second, Haman’s supposed action is an assault on the king’s honour. Ahasuerus condemns the Agagite because of the attempted rape of Esther who is both the queen and his wife150 and because he suspects the Agagite’s aspirations.151 Hence, if this is the case, the monarch might be using the accusation of attempted rape to remove an ambitious contestant for the throne and someone who was potentially a threat to his power.152 Haman’s reaction is expressed by the simple description “and Haman’s face was covered”. A similar expression appears in 6:12: “Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered (‫ ”) ֲחפּוי רֹאׁש‬indicating mourning and dishonour.153 In 7:8 “and Haman’s face was covered” describes what happens when the king returns to the palace and sees that Haman has fallen on the couch upon which Esther is lying. The sense of the Hebrew sentence ‫ ְּופ ֵנ֥י ָה ָ ֖מן ָח ֽפּו‬is unclear. Perhaps it means that Haman has lost the king’s favour and cannot see his face any longer154 or most probably points to the death sentence that the king pronounces thereafter.155 Grossman interprets 147   F.W. Bush, Esther, 430. 148  See also the reports in Classical sources, Plutarch, Artaxerxes, 26:2; Xenophon, Cyropaedia, V: 2.28. 149   J.C. Siebert-Hommes, “ ‘Come to the dinner I have prepared for you’ ”, 96–97. 150   T.K. Beal, Esther, 93. 151  Cf. A. Berlin, Esther, 64–65. 152  Cf. P. Haupt, “Critical Notes”, 150–151; A. Berlin, Esther, 70; D.E. Grant, Divine Anger, 57–58. 153  There is no obvious connection between 6:12 and 7:8 (A. Berlin, Esther, 71). Haman’s reaction to parading and exulting Mordecai (6:1–11) is described as his return home hiding his face. The hiding of his face can be interpreted either because he has lost his honour (cf. 2 Sam 15:30; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 79; A. Berlin, Esther, 62.) or because he returns home after a shameful humiliation (cf. Jer 14:2.3; F.W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 416). 154  A. Berlin, Esther, 71. 155  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 331; cf. A. Condamin, “La disgrace d’Aman”, 258–259; T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 117. This custom could be related to the covering of the condemned’s face by the Greeks and the Romans (cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 264).

184

CHAPTER 5

this expression as Haman’s incapability to see what is happening around him156 or even representing his lack of sight when confronting the others due to his ambition. This aspiration brings him to his death. In our view the covering of the face is a way of expressing the fear that had fallen upon Haman because he perceives that his end is imminent. The veiling of Haman’s face could also signify the movement by which Haman buries his face in his hands out of distress and fear of what is to come. The Agagite remains silent all through the scene while Ahasuerus and Esther speak to each other. Their words become a mighty weapon with which they deliberate over the lives of others whilst Haman’s silence makes him appear like a ghost. Having denounced Haman and after the king comes back, Esther keeps silent157 and becomes a passive spectator of Ahasuerus and Haman’s actions. Her silence speaks loudly of justice dispensed as an example of vengeance.158 Contrary to the views that see Esther’s behaviour as an example of Old Testament depraved morals in which there is no place for forgiveness,159 we hold that Esth 7:1–10 is an example of how the punishment for those who attempt genocide against the Jews is just and proportionate to the evil intended. Our passage, though, should not be understood with the eyes of a modern moralist but through the lenses of its comic literary genre.160 The Meghillah works within the realm of human justice, advocating that it should be dealt in such a way that the culprit should experience the punishment he or she intended for someone else (Prov 26:27; Qoh 10:8; cf. Prov 28:10; Ps 7:16).161 In this way the lex talionis is executed, limiting violence to a just measure.

156  J. Grossman, Esther, 166. 157  Josephus makes a comment saying that Esther did not speak because Ahasuerus came back from the garden so quickly that she did not have time to utter a word, cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 11:265. 158  Chapter 2 §3.7. 159  W. Dommershausen, Die Estherrolle, 36: “Der Autor vertritt hier seine harte alttestamentliche Ethik: Gegen den Volks- und Gottesfeind gibt es nur die strafende göttliche Gerechtigkeit”. 160   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 106: “More fundamentally, though the tradition of giving the book of Esther a moralistic reading is of great antiquity, one can wonder whether a narrative so full of intrigue, comedy, and grace should be interpreted with such high seriousness. To demand that Esther herself be a paragon of morality for ordinary people may be grossly to misunderstand the genre of the book itself and to miss the special circumstances of the episode it claims to report”. 161  J. Vílchez, Ester, 333.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

185

4.4 Denouement (7:9–10a) At this point of the account and rather suddenly the narrator introduces Harbonah (7:9) who must have been one of the close officials to Ahasuerus. He was sent to fetch Vashti (1:10) and must have been also an adviser or a high ranking official because otherwise there is no explanation why his observation was so readily taken into consideration by the king. Through his actions Harbonah proved to be an official favourable to Mordecai and one who must have known about the conflict between Haman and the Jew (3:1–4). As part of the royal household, he was aware of the edict against all the Jews (3:12–13) and came to know all the decisions that Haman had taken against Mordecai (5:14).162 Harbonah is also knowledgeable about the good deeds that Mordecai had done for the king. Pointing out the gallows and indirectly suggesting the punishment for the Agagite shows that some people were favourable towards the Jews among the Persians. In the same way, as some servants calling Haman’s attention to Mordecai’s refusal to bow to the vizier (3:3) set the plot in motion, now another servant’s comment brings it to completion. Harbonah’s comment predates the moment when “the fear of Mordecai” overtakes the courtiers (cf. 9:3) and attests the esteem that the Jew had among his colleagues. Harbonah uses language as a weapon. The word ‫( ּגַ ם‬also) appears twice in our text (7:8.9) to express the amount of evil Haman had devised. The first time ‫ ּגַ ם‬is on the lips of the monarch as he describes Haman’s rape attempt (7:8) and subsequently in Harbonah’s mouth as he points out the vizier’s plan to do away with Mordecai by erecting a gibbet: “behold the gallows Haman has erected for Mordecai, who had spoken well on account of the king” (7:9). These two instances condition the king to see that the faithful servant, who had saved his life, and his wife were being attacked by the Agagite.163 In this way Harbonah points out to an additional cause for Haman’s punishment.164 Laniak points out that the king could not sentence anyone for a single offense and by providing the second offense, namely, attempting against the king’s benefactor, Harbonah made it possible for the monarch to decree Haman’s death immediately.165 In a sense the double accusation is one of a crime against the 162  J. Vílchez, Ester, 332. 163  On 7:8, L.B. Paton, Esther, 263: “Also is used with reference to Haman’s first crime against Esther. Not satisfied with attacking her life, he must also attack her honour”. On 7:9, Ibidem, 264: “Too adds another reason to those already given by the King why Haman should be executed, and incidentally suggests a method of carrying out the sentence”. 164  Cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 204–205. 165   T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 110; cf. F.W. Bush, Esther, 433; Herodotus, Histories, 1:137: “I think this custom of theirs is very good, and I also approve of the fact that no one,

186

CHAPTER 5

crown, its representatives and its beneficiaries. Our passage thus sets another example of banquets as places of judgment and decision making. Harbonah’s intervention saves the Persian judicial system and moves the dispensation of justice from the court to the place where the king is at a given point. The banquet in chapter 7 “is a narrative intensification of what has already taken place up to that event. Nothing that had not already been decided is being decided at that banquet”.166 Through the use of ‫ ִהּנֵ ה‬as a link between the past and the present moment,167 Haman’s accusation is continued as the king’s attention is directed to the gallows built by his vizier in his house (5:14). Haman’s plan was to have Mordecai hanged in his own estate in order to ascertain his power and remind people of what would happen to anyone who did not pay homage to him. However, events are overturned and, by his death, Haman who was so worried about personal appraisal is dishonoured in his own property. This scene follows the Meghillah’s well-established pattern of instigation, anger, advice, execution and appeasement (cf. 1:13–22; 2:2–4; 6:8–9) with the variation that here the official’s words derive from the king’s anger towards Haman. Ahasuerus’ reaction is in sharp contrast with his previous ones because in 7:9 he decides immediately without requiring any sort of advice (cf. 1:13–19; 2:23). This promptness is dictated by the events of chapter 6 when Mordecai’s deeds were manifested and the king realised that the Jew had not been rewarded. When Harbonah describes Mordecai he does not depict him as “the Jew” or “he who sits at the king’s gate” as elsewhere in the Meghillah but the one “who had spoken well on account of the king” (7:9). Thus in this endeavour the verdict against Haman is not because of an offense against Mordecai as a Jew or as an official but Haman’s condemnation was on account of a fault against Mordecai who was the king’s loyal servant.168 Haman’s execution upon the gallows169 is intended most probably as a deterrent for others. Haman’s primary fault, to desire the death of one of the not even the king, can execute anyone who has been accused of only a single crime, nor can any other Persian do irreversible harm to any of the house-slaves for committing a single crime. But if after due consideration he finds that the crimes committed outweigh in number and in gravity the services rendered, then he can give way to anger”. 166  S. Plietzsch, “Eating and Living”, 27. 167   J M § 105: “In order to attract attention to what is perceived by a speaker, narrator or by a character in the narration as new, important or surprising one uses the presentative adverb ‫” ִהּנֵ ה‬. 168   H.M. Wahl, “Der Prozess Hamans”, 109. 169  As described above, hanging was a punishing for traitors (chapter 2 §3.1) whereas in Persia it was also a punishment for people who had committed sexual offenses (Herodotus, Histories, 4:43).

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

187

king’s counsellors, came to the fore through an offense he had not committed, i.e. trying to rape the queen. This is another example of how in the Bible the hidden crimes are revealed and how there is a just relationship between crime and punishment (cf. Exod 22:21–23; Lev 24:19; Deut 19:16–19; 1 Sam 15:23b.33).170 4.5 Final Situation (7:10b) The final consequence of this episode is recounted briefly in three Hebrew words ‫“ וַ ֲח ַמת ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ָׁש ָכ ָכה‬and the king’s anger subsided”. In chapter 2 the appeasement of the monarch’s rage after the Vashti event gave way to the prosperity of Esther; in the same way the abatement of the king’s anger in this occasion provides the way for Mordecai’s exaltation. The monarch reaches a state of peace when the Jews come into the scene. It seems that Esther, Mordecai and their people carry a good omen and should be associated with order and peace. The king’s anger therefore works always for the good and prosperity of the Jews who in their turn provide the monarch with a tranquil situation. However, Haman’s death is not the solution to all the distresses explained in the Meghillah. The queen’s first request has been granted, namely, her life has been spared but nothing has yet been decreed about her second demand, i.e. the salvation of her people. The suspense remains even though one could think that if the queen’s life has been spared her people’s lives will be saved as well. 5 Conclusion Esth 7:1–10 develops the characterisation of Ahasuerus, Haman and Esther. The king is no longer a puppet but begins to emerge as someone who has a personal interest in state matters and who takes decisions independently from anyone else’s suggestion.171 We are then not surprised when the king confesses that the reason why he decreed Haman’s death was that he tried to kill the Jews (8:7).172 So if one reads Esth 7:1–10 without a reference to Ahasuerus’ words afterwards, one misses the point and misjudges the monarch. Haman is condemned for a crime he has committed173 and all along he is silent. Appearing as someone who is blinded by his own ambition, Haman in fact falls because

170   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 105. 171  Cf. C.D. Harvey, Finding Morality, 75–76. 172  Chapter 3 §6.3. 173   C.D. Harvey, Finding Morality, 39: “By his appearance Haman signs his own deathwarrant”, cf. T.S. Laniak, Shame and Honor, 111.

188

CHAPTER 5

of the workings of Esther whom he did not consider an enemy.174 He trusts Esther’s hospitality and mercy but met death and disgrace instead.175 Though accused by some authors of being merciless,176 Esther grows to full stature in her task. First she appears as independent from Mordecai who had banned her from revealing her identity (2:10.20). Then, as she knows that Haman is a threat for her life and that of her people she decides to act because as long as he is alive there is no escape for them. After her denunciation of Haman and the disclosure of her identity, she remains quiet. Her silence, which is to be understood as a choice of prudence and logic,177 brings about the beginnings of a solution for the problems posed earlier in the book. Chapter 7 is an example of how justice was administered in Persia. A first reading of the text would bring the reader to conclude that the exercise of justice is an arbitrary endeavour. However, Herodotus describes a detailed process which is followed by the author of Esther as well.178 To begin with, the administration of justice is not tied to a place but can be dispensed wherever the king is. Harald Wahl has shown that in our account all the elements of a judicial case are present: the accusation, the proofs and witnesses, the confession of the guilty party, the requesting of mercy, the verdict and the execution of the ruling.179 Unlike the case of the court officials in which there was the official language of investigation (2:23), it would seem that the accusation is taken at face value in chapter 7. However as we have shown there is a double accusation in our text, trying to rape the queen and attempting to kill the king’s benefactor. These two accusations were needed for a verdict. The seriousness of the accusation against Haman is comparable to the one against the two eunuchs. Whereas the latter was an attempt against the king the former is against the queen who is part of the royal household.180 In Esth 7:1–10 we witness the relationship between revelation and resolution in a plot. The resolution of the problem comes after a double revelation: at the first instance Esther reveals her kin and then the name of the enemy. Both disclosures are related since “by identifying Haman she had unmasked 174  A. Bach, Women, Seduction and Betrayal, 198. 175  This could be compared with the story of Jael and Sisera, cf. N. Calduch-Benages, “War, Violence and Revenge”, 134; cf. N.W. Duran, Having Men for Dinner, 22–26. 176   L.B. Paton, Esther, 264: “Her character would have been more attractive if she had shown mercy”. 177   F.W. Bush, Esther, 434; C.A. Moore, Esther, 74. 178  Herodotus, The Histories, 1:137. 179  Cf. H.M. Wahl, “Der Prozess Hamans”, 106–112. 180   H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 152.

The Beginning Of The End: Exegesis Of Esther 7:1–10

189

the villain but she had also unmasked herself”.181 These revelations produce at first a reaction of surprise and anger which are resolved with Haman’s execution. Thus the solution to the crisis depends on the revelation of what is concealed which in its turn produces violence. But this onslaught should be seen positively because it underlines the faithfulness of Mordecai, Esther and all the Jews as well as setting the spotlight on Haman’s deceitfulness. The banquet in chapter 7, though, is different from all the others. In the other banquets there is some parity among those who partake in them. For example, Ahasuerus’s guests are treated as royalty at the first banquet (1:3–8) and there is an identification of Haman with the king (3:15; 5:12). Conversely, once Esther invites the king and his prime minister and reveals her identity, she willingly creates division and segregation. By identifying herself with the Jewish people,182 Esther separates herself from the king’s previous decision and the official policy of the empire in order to save her people. She only accuses Haman who is the thinking mind behind the decree and by doing so exculpates the king who was the executor of the law. The banquet takes on a different meaning thus becoming the place of revelation, overturning, division and the seat of judgement.183 Nevertheless, Esth 7:1–10 also exalts the triumph of goodness over evil and of justice over arbitrariness.184 There is a transfer of power after the banquet (8:1.5–8) similar to the transfer of power after the king’s second banquet.185 In both cases the Jews are receivers of that goodness coming from the king. Just as Esther receives life, which is her most prized possession, a similar celebration is organised in chapter 9 after the Jewish victory over the Persians. The joyful Purim banquet also commemorates the transfer of power to the Jews (cf. 9:1).

181   C.A. Moore, Esther, 74. 182  Earlier in the account, Mordecai had identified Esther with her people: “Think not that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews” (4:13). These words brought her to speak with the king to start the process of salvation of the Jews (5:1). This process comes to full maturity in chapter 7 when she identifies herself with her people and separates herself from the Persians, cf. A. Minissale, Ester, 185. 183  Cf. T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 97–98. 184  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 17: “[Esther’s accusation] is the moral, not the legal, verdict agreed upon by Jew and Persian together even if the king could only see the wickedness for what it was when it affected his own property. It is a story of the crushing of evil, not the triumph of law; indeed, it is a story of the crushing of evil even when it is enshrined in the law”. 185   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 158: banquets are “the vehicle for the theme of power— its gain and its loss”.

CHAPTER 6

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19 We praise a man who feels anger on the right grounds and against the right persons, and also in the right manner and at the right moment and for the right length of time.1

∵ As the book of Esther draws to its close,2 there is a drastic change of style3 from an embellished narrative to a heavy repetitive chronicled account justifying the celebrations of Purim. Esth 9:1–19 recounts how the hopes and expectations of those who were persecuted came true and how through having conquered the enemy, freedom was acquired. The people of Israel had sat on death

1  Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, IV, 5.3. 2  Chapter 9 has been divided into two sections, 9:1–19 and 9:20–32, cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 84–91; W. Dommershausen, Estherrolle, 44–48; G. Gerleman, Esther, 130–144; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 39–63; F.W. Bush, Esther, 337; J.D. Levenson, Esther, 119; J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 355; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 107–128; C.M. Bechtel, Esther, 77–84; L.M. Day, Esther, 143–170; H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 176–205; C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 56; R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 226–254. Some authors would divide 9:20–32 into two, namely 9:20–28 (cf. J.-D. Macchi, “Lettres de fête et réécriture”, 51–64) and 9:29–32 (cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 57–60; C.A. Moore, Esther, 95; S.E. Loewenstamm, “Esther 9:29–32”, 117–124; A. Meinhold, Das Buch Ester, 93; B.W. Jones, “The so-called Appendix”, 36–43; G. Gerleman, Esther, 137; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 164–167; F.W. Bush, Esther, 469–471). Minissale proposes a threefold division: a narrative section (9:1–19), a normative block (9:20–23) and a commemorative portion (9:24–28) with the addition of a more formal finale and the mention of Esther (9:29–32), cf. A. Minissale, Ester, 222–223 and M.-T. Wacker, “Tödliche Gewalt”, 616. Grossman includes Esth 8:17 in the first part of the division (J. Grossman, Esther, 185) while Paton divides chapter 9 into six sections: 9:1–10; 11–15; 16–19; 20–22; 23–28; 29–32 (L.B. Paton, Esther, 51. 282–303). 3  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 56: “Le style adopté dans la narration se modifie. Il ne s’agit plus tant d’un récit que d’une sorte de chronique historique écrite sur le mode du sommaire: toute une série d’événements se produisant en divers endroits se trouvent résumés en quelques phrases”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_008

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

191

row for twelve months4 and when the day of execution came they were set free by a royal decree and the work of their own hands. This change of fate is sung about and celebrated for all generations.5 According to some authors these verses are a later addition and not part of the original structure of the book6 whereas in other scholars’ opinion no conclusive evidence can be found for its independence.7 In our view, whatever the prehistory of Esth 9:1–19 might be these verses are now part of the book as it has been handed on to us. We aim to provide some reasons for the existence of these verses and to prove that they fit in with other descriptions of violence in the Meghillah. The Jewish people come into the light and grow into the full stature of their character as an independent people under the guidance of cunning leaders who manoeuvre the royal powers for the preservation of all the Jews. 1 Text ‫לֹוׁשה‬ ָ ‫ּוב ְׁשנֵ ים ָע ָׂשר ח ֶֹדׁש הּוא־ח ֶֹדׁש ֲא ָדר ִּב ְׁש‬ ִ 1 ‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ָדתֹו ְל ֵה ָעׂשֹות ַּבּיֹום‬ ַ ‫ָע ָׂשר יֹום ּבֹו ֲא ֶׁשר ִהּגִ ַיע ְּד ַב‬ ‫הּודים ִל ְׁשלֹוט ָּב ֶהם וְ נַ ֲהפֹוְך הּוא ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ִ ְ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ִׂש ְּברּו א ֵֹיְבי ַהּי‬ ‫יהם׃‬ ֶ ‫הּודים ֵה ָּמה ְּבׂש ֹנְ ֵא‬ ִ ְ‫יִ ְׁש ְלטּו ַהּי‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫הּודים ְּב ָע ֵר‬ ִ ְ‫נִ ְק ֲהלּו ַהּי‬2 ‫ֹלח יָ ד ִּב ְמ ַב ְק ֵׁשי ָר ָע ָתם‬ ַ ‫ל־מ ִדינֹות ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֳא ַחׁשוֵ רֹוׁש ִל ְׁש‬ ְ ‫ְּב ָכ‬ ‫ל־ה ַע ִּמים׃‬ ָ ‫ל־ּכ‬ ָ ‫יהם ִּכי־נָ ַפל ַּפ ְח ָּדם ַע‬ ֶ֔ ֵ‫א־ע ַמד ִל ְפנ‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ִאיׁש ל‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־ׂש ֵרי ַה ְּמ ִדינֹות וְ ָה ֲא ַח ְׁש ַּד ְר ְּפנִ ים וְ ַה ַּפחֹות וְ ע ֵֹׂשי ַה ְּמ ָל‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכ‬3 ‫יהם׃‬ ֶ ‫ד־מ ְר ֳּד ַכי ֲע ֵל‬ ָ ‫הּודים ִּכי־נָ ַפל ַּפ ַח‬ ִ ְ‫ת־הּי‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַל ֶּמ ֶלְך ְמנַ ְּׂש ִאים ֶא‬ ‫הֹולְך‬ ֵ ‫ ִּכי־גָ דֹול ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי ְּב ֵבית ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ָׁש ְמעֹו‬4 ‫הֹולְך וְ גָ דֹול׃ פ‬ ֵ ‫י־ה ִאיׁש ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְּמ ִדינֹות ִּכ‬ ַ ‫ְּב ָכ‬ 4  Moreover, the Jews had over eight months to observe their enemies and so prepare their attack: Mordecai’s decree was sanctioned on 23rd of Sivan (the third month) and the battle was on 13th Adar (12th month), hence a total of eight months and 20 days, cf. H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 378. 5  A. Berlin, Esther, 83: “The etiology of Purim in chapter 9, at least until verse 29, was probably written at the same time as the rest of the book [. . .]. I am not saying that the story did not exist independently, in one form or another, prior to its appearance in the Masoretic Text. My point is that I see the present form of the story along with the etiology of Purim as the work of the Masoretic author”. Cf. T.K. Beal, Esther, 107–108. 6  Cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 39–63; C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther, 315–319. 7  M.V. Fox, Redaction, 110; cf. H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 396; C.A. Moore, Esther, 97; S.B. Berg, The Book of Esther, 38.

‫‪192‬‬

‫‪CHAPTER 6‬‬

‫ת־ח ֶרב וְ ֶה ֶרג וְ ַא ְב ָדן‬ ‫יהם ַמ ַּכ ֶ‬ ‫הּודים ְּב ָכל־א ֵֹיְב ֶ‬ ‫‪5‬וַ ּיַ ּכּו ַהּיְ ִ‬ ‫יהם ִּכ ְרצֹונָ ם׃‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ֲעׂשּו ְבׂש ֹנְ ֵא ֶ‬ ‫הּודים וְ ַא ֵּבד ֲח ֵמׁש ֵמאֹות ִאיׁש׃‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן ַה ִּב ָירה ָה ְרגּו ַהּיְ ִ‬ ‫ּוב ַ‬ ‫‪ְ 6‬‬ ‫‪7‬וְ ֵאת׀ ַּפ ְר ַׁשנְ ָּד ָתא וְ ֵאת׀ ַּד ְלפֹון וְ ֵאת׀ ַא ְס ָּפ ָתא׃‬ ‫ּפֹור ָתא וְ ֵאת׀ ֲא ַד ְליָ א וְ ֵאת׀ ֲא ִר ָיד ָתא׃‬ ‫‪8‬וְ ֵאת׀ ָ‬ ‫יסי וְ ֵאת׀ ֲא ִר ַדי וְ ֵאת׀ וַ יְ זָ ָתא׃‬ ‫‪9‬וְ ֵאת׀ ַּפ ְר ַמ ְׁש ָּתא וְ ֵאת׀ ֲא ִר ַ‬ ‫הּודים ָה ָרגּו‬ ‫ן־ה ְּמ ָד ָתא צ ֵֹרר ַהּיְ ִ‬ ‫‪ֲ 10‬ע ֶׂש ֶרת ְּבנֵ י ָה ָמן ֶּב ַ‬ ‫ּוב ִּבּזָ ה לֹא ָׁש ְלחּו ֶאת־יָ ָדם׃‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן ַה ִּב ָירה ִל ְפנֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך׃ ס‬ ‫‪ַּ 11‬בּיֹום ַההּוא ָּבא ִמ ְס ַּפר ַה ֲהרּוגִ ים ְּב ַ‬ ‫אמר ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְל ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַה ַּמ ְְל ָּבה‬ ‫‪12‬וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫י־ה ָמן‬ ‫הּודים וְ ַא ֵּבד ֲח ֵמׁש ֵמאֹות ִאיׁש וְ ֵאת ֲע ֶׂש ֶרת ְּבנֵ ָ‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן ַה ִּב ָירה ָה ְרגּו ַהּיְ ִ‬ ‫ְּב ַ‬ ‫ה־ּב ָּק ָׁש ֵתְך עֹוד וְ ֵת ָעׂש׃‬ ‫ּומ ַ‬ ‫ה־ּׁש ֵא ָל ֵתְך וְ יִ ּנָ ֵתן ָלְך ַ‬ ‫ּומ ְ‬ ‫ִּב ְׁש ָאר ְמ ִדינֹות ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֶמה ָעׂשּו ַ‬ ‫אמר ֶא ְס ֵּתר‬ ‫‪13‬וַ ּת ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן ַל ֲעׂשֹות ְּכ ָדת ַהּיֹום‬ ‫הּודים ֲא ֶׁשר ְּב ָ‬ ‫ם־מ ָ֗חר ַלּיְ ִ‬ ‫ל־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך טֹוב יִ ּנָ ֵתן ּגַ ָ‬ ‫ם־ע ַ‬ ‫ִא ַ‬ ‫ל־ה ֵעץ׃‬ ‫יִתלּו ַע ָ‬ ‫י־ה ָמן ְ‬ ‫וְ ֵאת ֲע ֶׂש ֶרת ְּבנֵ ָ‬ ‫י־ה ָמן ָּתלּו׃‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן וְ ֵאת ֲע ֶׂש ֶרת ְּבנֵ ָ‬ ‫אמר ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְל ֵה ָעׂשֹות ֵּכן וַ ִּתּנָ ֵתן ָּדת ְּב ָ‬ ‫‪14‬וַ ּי ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן ּגַ ם ְּביֹום ַא ְר ָּב ָעה ָע ָׂשר ְלח ֶֹדׁש ֲָא ָדר‬ ‫ר־ּב ָ‬ ‫הּודּיִ ים‪ֲ 8‬א ֶׁש ְ‬ ‫‪15‬וַ ּיִ ָּק ֲהלּו ַהּיְ ִ‬ ‫ּוב ִּבּזָ ה לֹא ָׁש ְלחּו ֶאת־יָ ָדם׃‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן ְׁשֹלׁש ֵמאֹות ִאיׁש ַ‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ַה ְרגּו ְב ָ‬ ‫הּודים ֲא ֶׁשר ִּב ְמ ִדינֹות ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך נִ ְק ֲהלּו׀‬ ‫ּוׁש ָאר ַהּיְ ִ‬ ‫‪ְ 16‬‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫יהם וְ ָהר ֹג ְּבׂש ֹנְ ֵא ֶ‬ ‫נֹוח ֵמא ֵֹיְב ֶ‬ ‫וְ ָעמֹד ַעל־נַ ְפ ָׁשם וְ ַ‬ ‫ּוב ִּבּזָ ה לֹא ָׁש ְלחּו ֶאת־יָ ָדם׃‬ ‫ֲח ִמ ָּׁשה וְ ִׁש ְב ִעים ָא ֶלף ַ‬ ‫ֹלׁשה ָע ָׂשר ְלח ֶֹדׁש ֲא ָדר‬ ‫יֹום־ׁש ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪ְּ 17‬ב‬ ‫נֹוח ְּב ַא ְר ָּב ָעה ָע ָׂשר ּבֹו וְ ָעׂש ֹה אֹתֹו י֖ ֹום ִמ ְׁש ֶּתה וְ ִׂש ְמ ָחה׃‬ ‫וְ ַ‬ ‫‪18‬וְ ַהּיְ ִ‬ ‫ּוב ַא ְר ָּב ָעה ָע ָׂשר ּבֹו‬ ‫ֹלׁשה ָע ָׂשר ּבֹו ְ‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשן נִ ְק ֲהלּו ִּב ְׁש ָ‬ ‫ר־ּב ָ֗‬ ‫הּודּיִ ים‪ֲ 9‬א ֶׁש ְ‬ ‫נֹוח ַּב ֲח ִמ ָּׁשה ָע ָׂשר ּבֹו וְ ָעׂש ֹה אֹתֹו יֹום ִמ ְׁש ֶּתה וְ ִׂש ְמ ָחה׃‬ ‫וְ ַ‬ ‫ל־ּכן ַהּיְ ִ ֣‬ ‫‪ַ 19‬ע ֵ‬ ‫הּודים ַה ְּפ ָרזֹות‪ַ 10‬הּי ְֹׁש ִבים ְּב ָע ֵרי ַה ְּפרֹוזִ ים‬ ‫ע ִֹׂשים ֵאת יֹום ַא ְר ָּב ָעה ָע ָׂשר ְלח ֶֹדׁש ֲא ָדר‬ ‫ּומ ְׁש ֶּתה וְ יֹום טֹוב‬ ‫ִׂש ְמ ָחה ִ‬ ‫לֹוח ָמנֹות ִאיׁש ְל ֵר ֵעהּו׃‬ ‫ּומ ְׁש ַ‬ ‫ִ‬

‫‪1.1 Translation‬‬ ‫‪1. In the twelfth month, that is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day when‬‬ ‫‪the king’s word and his decree were promulgated to be executed; on that‬‬ ‫‪very day in which the enemies of the Jews thought they would gain mastery‬‬

‫הּודים ‪8  Qere:‬‬ ‫‪ַ .‬הּיְ ׅ‬ ‫הּודים ‪9  Qere:‬‬ ‫‪.‬וֽ ַהּיְ ׅ‬ ‫  ‪10‬‬ ‫‪ַ .‬ה ְּפ ָרזׅ ים ‪Qere:‬‬

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

193

over them, everything was changed11 and the Jews gained mastery over their enemies. 2. The Jews gathered in their cities in all12 the provinces of king Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their evil and no one stood up for their lives because fear of them had fallen over all the peoples. 3. Meanwhile all the princes of the provinces and the satraps and the governors and those who work for the king supported the Jews because the fear of Mordecai had fallen over them 4. because Mordecai was important in the king’s household and his name was growing in all the provinces because the man Mordecai grew more and more important.13 5. And the Jews smote all their enemies by the sword and killed and destroyed them and they did with their enemies as they wanted. 6. Namely, in the citadel of Susa the Jews killed and annihilated five hundred men 7. and Parshandatah, and Dalphon, and Aspatah, and 8. Porathah, Adalyah, Aridathah, 9. Parmashtah, Arisay, Ariday and Yezatha, 10. the ten children of Haman, son of Amdathah, the enemy of the Jews were also killed but the Jews did not stretch out their hand towards the booty. 11. On that very day the number of those killed in the citadel of Susa came to the knowledge of the king. 12. And the king said to queen Esther: “In the citadel of Susa the Jews have killed and annihilated five hundred men and Haman’s ten children; in the remaining provinces of the king, what have they done? What is your request? so that it may be granted to you. What is your wish once more? so that it may be done”. 13. And Esther answered: “If it pleases the king let tomorrow be granted to the Jews who are in Susa to do according to today’s decree and let Haman’s ten children be hanged upon the gallows”. 14. And the king ordered that it should be done like that and the decree was granted in Susa and Haman’s ten children were hanged. 15. And the Jews who were in Susa gathered also on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and they killed in Susa three hundred men but they did not stretch out their hand towards the booty. 16. While the remnant of the Jews who were in the king’s provinces had gathered14 and had defended their lives and they had rested 11  Literally “it was changed”. This is a difficult sentence. The infinitive absolute followed by an independent impersonal pronoun (‫ )וְ נַ ֲהפֹוְך הּוא‬works as a finite verb and, though surrounded by subordinate clauses, it becomes an independent clause acting as the main clause of this phrase. The position of this clause is emphatic, cf. H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 396; F.W. Bush, Esther, 461. 12   ‫ כֹל‬with a determinate noun has the meaning of totality, JM §139e. 13  An infinite absolute preceded by the participle ‫ ה ֵֹלך‬indicates continuity, JM §123s; cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 231–. 14  Because these actions do not follow chronologically those of verse 15 but are part of the summary of vv. 2–5, the tense should be a pluperfect (L.B. Paton, Esther, 289).

194

CHAPTER 6

from their enemies and they had killed seventy five thousand of their enemies but they had not stretched out their hand towards the booty. 17. On the thirteenth day of the month of Adar and on the fourteenth day they rested and they made it a day of banquet and rejoicing. 18. While the Jews who were in Susa gathered themselves on the very same thirteenth day and indeed on the fourteenth and they rested on the fifteenth and they made it a day of banqueting and rejoicing. 19. Because of this, the Jews living in the villages,15 who dwelt in the cities of the open towns,16 made on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar rejoicing and banqueting and a good day while sending portions, each man to his neighbour. 1.2 The Greek Versions In Esther 9, LXX differs the most from the Masoretic text.17 Among the changes provided, LXX attenuates the effect of violence in this concluding chapter18 by omitting several words which made the situation or the characters crueller.19 For example, in LXX the concept of gaining mastery over the enemies is deleted (‫ ׁשלט‬MT 9:1), no description of weapons is given neither is any mention that the Jews treated their enemies as they pleased made (MT 9:5). Furthermore the syntheton “killing and annihilation” which expresses the totality of the Jewish action against their enemies in the Masoretic text (‫הּודים וְ ַא ֵּבד‬ ִ ְ‫ָה ְרגּו ַהּי‬ MT 9:6) is simplified to the single utterance “the Jews killed [five hundred men]” (ἀπέκτειναν οἱ Ιουδαῖοι). LXX partly exonerates the culpability of the Jews in the killings of their enemies by conjugating the main verb in the passive (ἀπώλοντο οἱ ἀντικείμενοι τοῖς Ιουδαίοις LXX 9:2) rather than in the active voice of the Hebrew text (‫] ִל ְׁש ֹ֣ל ַח ָיד ִּב ְמ ַב ְק ֵ ׁ֖שי ָ ֽר ָע ָ ֑תם‬....[ ‫הּודים‬ ֜ ִ ְ‫)נִ ְק ֲהל֙ ּו ַהּי‬. Finally, according to LXX, the Jews 15  The suggested translation for ‫ פרז‬is “inhabitant of an open, unwalled town” (HALOT, 965). When referring to the Jews in this verse the qere describes them as ‫“( ַה ְּפ ָרזִ ים‬residents of the open country”) whereas the ketib as ‫ ַה ְּפרֹוזִ ים‬. the meaning of ‫הּפרֹוזִ ים‬ ְ is unknown meaning resulting in a lack of translation in dictionaries. Hence, because no satisfactory explanation for the ketib has been found, the qere should be kept (F.W. Bush, Esther, 477). ‫ ַה ְּפ ָרזִ ים‬has usually been explained by a reference to persons living in isolated, un-walled cities (cf. Zech 2:8–9). 16  The expression ‫ ָע ֵרי ַה ְּפ ָרזֹות‬, which should be considered as an explanation of ‫הּפרֹוזִ ים‬ ְ (L.B. Paton, Esther, 292), is better translated as “isolated towns, i.e. open or un-walled market towns or hamlets dotted in the country” (cf. G.R. Driver, “Problems in Judges”, 8–9; cf. A. Berlin, Esther, 87–88). 17  Cf. J. Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted, 337–341. 18  Cf. M.-T. Wacker, “Tödliche Gewalt”, 617–619. 19  Cf. L.M. Day, Three Faces of a Queen, 151–158.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

195

plunder in Susa but not in the provinces (LXX 9:10)20 and are gentler in the country districts because they help each other and kill only 15,000 Persians (LXX 9:16).21 A-Text shortens this account from 593 words in LXX to 181.22 Even though it depends largely on LXX,23 some differences can be highlighted such as the number of casualties—A-Text reports that the Jews had killed 700 people in Susa, Haman’s ten children and 70,100 Persians in the provinces. These deaths are the result of a second day of fighting which is requested by Esther without the king prompting her. Finally according to A-Text, “the fear of the Jews” (9:3) “falls” upon their enemies just as in the MT. LXX, instead, uses the form “to be laid upon”. In this instance therefore scholars point out that A-Text depends on MT and not on LXX.24 2

Literary Analysis

2.1 Delimitation Esther 9:1 starts with a series of temporal clauses that produce a radical and abrupt rupture from what precedes (‫“ ִּוב ְׁשנֵ ים ָע ָׂשר ח ֶֹדׁש‬in the twelfth month”). The following break comes at 9:20 with the verb ‫“( וּיִ ְכּתֹב‬and he wrote”). At that point the battles have finished and Purim has been instituted, so it is logical that the section finishes because of the change of content. With 9:20 a new unit begins in which the main thrust is the writing of two letters establishing and endorsing Purim. The unifying theme of Esther 9:1–19 is the action of the Jews in their fight against their enemies. The Jewish fight on two different dates in the citadel of Susa brackets a conversation between Ahasuerus and Esther. It also results in a day of rejoicing celebrated with banqueting. Our pericope follows the 20  This is a major difference as far as content goes. It entails the fulfilment of the king’s command but, as there is no textual evidence in which this verb is negated, it should be taken as original. 21   L XX Esth 9:16: “And the rest of the Jews who were in the kingdom assembled, and helped one another, and obtained rest from their enemies: for they destroyed fifteen thousand of them on the thirteenth day of Adar, but took no spoil”. 22  A. Minissale, Ester, 239. 23  According to Fox’s redaction theory, AT is older than MT. The redactor of MT would have used the material given to him and developed it incorporating new themes to the text such as the inalterability of the Persian law, the punishment of the Jews’ enemies and the aetiology of Purim, which is lacking from AT; cf. M.V. Fox, Redaction, 115–120. 24  A. Minissale, Ester, 239.

196

CHAPTER 6

command-realisation pattern and hence once the king’s orders have been put into action, the scene logically finishes. The final result of the Jewish actions is rest from their enemies. So until this rest has been achieved and described the pericope cannot reach its end.25 Within 9:1–19 a certain similarity in style can be highlighted. For example the author insists on giving full calendar indications: “in the twelfth month [. . .] on the thirteen day” (9:1.11.15) and “on the fourteenth day” (9:15.17.18.19). The author also displaces the main verbs of some clauses with a temporal ‫ַּבּיֹום‬ ‫“( ַההּוא ָּבא ִמ ְס ַּפר‬on that very day the number [of those killed] came [to the knowledge of the king]”)” (9:11 cf. 1.17) or a spatial phrase ‫ׁשּוׁשן ַה ִּב ָירה ָה ְרגּו‬ ַ ‫ּוב‬ ְ ‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫“( ַהּי‬namely, in the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed”) (9:6.12). In this way, both the time and the place where the action occurs are emphasised. 2.2 Setting Upon encountering the date 13th of Adar at the beginning of chapter 9, the reader immediately thinks about the lots falling on such a day (3:7) and the decree ordering the annihilation of all the Jews (3:12–13). At the same time Mordecai’s edict comes to mind and both documents are recalled by the vocabulary used and by the actions undertaken. In Haman’s decree the Persians were authorised to destroy the Jews whilst Mordecai had granted the Jews permission to gather and stand up for their lives (8:11) which is what they actually did (9:16). According to us, there are similarities both in vocabulary and style attesting the desire of the final redactor to set this passage within the whole structure of the Meghillah.26 For example, the expression “fear of the Jews” (8:17; 9:2) 25  Contrary to Bush. According to him, the section finishes in 9:5 because it is the resolution of the crisis which had started by Haman’s edict. 26  According to Clines, chapter 9 is a later addition to the story of Esther and was written by a different author who, though using similar expressions and words, did not obtain the same effect but a poorer and more inferior narrative (cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 39–63). Clines’s arguments could be summarised in the following schematic points: 1. chapter 9 does not present the tension between the decrees issued by Haman and by Mordecai because it ignores the first one completely; 2. no mention of a Persian attack on the Jews is mentioned; instead, chapter 9 describes a Jewish massacre of antiSemites rather than the Jewish self-defence against the imperially sponsored troops; 3. even though the concept of “fear” is used in chapters 8 and 9, the meaning of the expression is different; 4. the concept of enemy and the words used to refer to it are different. In chapter 1–8 the only foe is Haman whilst in chapter 9, the Persians become enemies; 5. other conflicts with the rest of the Meghillah are for example the mention of the cities of the Jews whereas earlier the Jews are spread through the empire (3:8), gaining mastery

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

197

functions as a link between chapter 8 and chapter 9. In both cases the dread is caused by the power that the Jews had acquired and brings about the Persian support for the Jews. Also in those chapters there is an insistence that people gather (‫ )קהל‬to defend themselves (8:11; 9:2.15.16.18). The word pair “killing and annihilation” appears in 9:5, similar to their verbal forms used elsewhere (3:13; 8:11). The king’s question “what is your request? so that it may be granted to you. What is your wish?” is similar to the monarch’s previous entreaty at Esther’s two banquets (5:3.6; 7:3) while her formal request to her husband “if it pleases the king”, uttered previously (1:19; 3:9; 5:4.8; 7:3), links this passage with the Scroll. The officials of the court listed as “all the princes of the provinces and the satraps and the governors” (9:2) are examples of the royal administration and recall Haman and Mordecai’s edicts (3:12; 8:9). The image of the gallows reappears (9:13 cf. 2:23; 7:10) and Haman is described as an enemy by his full ethnic title (9:10; cf. 3:1; 8:5; 9:24). The author makes some innovations such as the introduction of ‫ׂש ֹנְ ִאים‬, a new word to describe the Persians as enemies,27 and the names of Haman’s ten children. From the point of view of style this chapter starts in the same way as chapter 1. A series of temporal clauses set a background and prepare for the first action. Incidentally, in both cases the first action is an act of violence, namely, in 1:12 the king is angry after Vashti’s refusal to come into his presence and in 9:5 the first wayyiqtol describes how the Jews smote their enemies. Like chapter 1, 9:1–19 reacquires the sense of universality by the mention of all the provinces and then focuses on Susa and its citadel.28 According to us, a further similarity is found in verse 6 which begins with a waw explicativum as elsewhere in the Scroll (1:12; 2:21). Resembling other instances in the Meghillah, a command is put into practice (cf. 7:9–10). Similar to chapter 7’s dialogue, the conversation between the king and the queen consists of the consort’s double request. Whereas in is a new idea in chapter 9; the Persian leaders are listed twice in the Scroll (3:12; 8:9) but in a different order; 6. views about the king’s generosity/character differ in Esther. Some of these objections are refuted by Fox. In particular he shows that objections 1, 3 and 4 are not as important as Clines makes them, cf. M.V. Fox, The Redaction, 110–113. 27  We disagree with Clines who sets this new feature as an example of the poor redaction of this chapter (D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 42–46). As we have explained earlier (see chapter 2 §1 above) the Meghillah uses three different words for enemy depending on whether they are applied to Haman or the Persians. In this we see the excellence of the final redactor who wanted to be precise about whom he was referring to. 28  Chapter 1 takes the reader from the universality of the empire with its 120 provinces (‫ּומ ָאה ְמ ִדינָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ ֶע ְׂש ִרים‬, 1:1) to the citadel of Susa (1:2). In a similar way, in 9:1–2: the reader goes from ‫ל־מ ִדינֹות‬ ְ ‫ ָכ‬to the citadel of Susa.

198

CHAPTER 6

chapter 7 Esther asked for her life and that of her people, in chapter 9 she demands a second day of battle and the public display of Haman’s dead children. In this way the pattern of events and descriptions coming in pairs is used. 2.3 Structure Despite Beal’s view that “we will do well to avoid relying heavily on formal or structural division in our analysis of the material”,29 many authors have proposed their own ordering of Esth 9:1–19. Before providing ours, we will review those we consider to be the most significant. Bush divides chapter 9 into two sections (9:1–530 and 9:6–32). He writes that whereas the latter is the pure aetiology of the feast of Purim, the former succinctly describes the resolution of the conflict between the Jews and their enemies. This quarrel was de facto resolved by the end of chapter 8 but needed to be formalised. Only when the problem is settled the feast can be instituted.31 The second section (9:6–32) is further divided into two scenes: 9:6–19, which provides the reasons for a second day of fighting, and 9:20–32 consisting of the letters instituting the feast of Purim. The final result is that the festivities are not a commemoration of a battle from the past but the celebration of the changes that happened in the life of the Jews. According to Vílchez, 9:1–19 is composed of two sections:32 a) 9:1–10, which has a unity of time and style whereby the action of the Jews on the one day around the empire is described in a narrative manner, and b) 9:11–19, which is mostly the aetiological response to Esther’s initiative and a description of what happens in Susa and the provinces. The second section could be subdivided into two units: 9:11–15, the dialogue between Esther and the king, and 9:16–19 which repeats the information already given so as to explain the two days of celebration. Wahl distinguishes three blocks which coincide with Paton’s:33 9:1–10, 9:11–15 and 9:16–19, whilst Vialle provides five.34 Vialle’s division is as follows: a) a prologue summarising the events (9:1–4); b) a first day of fighting with the massacre of the enemies of the Jews (9:5–10); c) the dialogue between king and queen (9:11–14); d) a second day on which the Jews residing in Susa killed

29   T.K. Beal, Esther, 109. 30  According to Bush, there is an inclusio between verses 1 and 5 (F.W. Bush, Esther, 457). 31   F.W. Bush, Esther, 456. 32  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 356. 33  Cf. H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 176–189; L.B. Paton, Esther, 282–292. 34  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 56.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

199

300 men (9:15); and e) the epilogue giving an account of the killings of all the empire (9:16–19). Based on a study of the verbal system, our outline divides this section into four, namely, the background information (9:1–4), the first action described (9:5–11), the dialogue between the king and the queen (9:12–13) and the fulfilment of the command (9:14–19). This distribution of verses highlights the description of violence. In a first instance the author sets the background information by using the x-qatal form (9:1–4) and in this way he prepares for the main action of the chapter: the killing of the Persians in verse 5 and the political consequences following the battles (9:5–11).35 The dialogue between Ahasuerus and Esther (9:12–13) is again somehow background information and serves as an excuse for the second day in which the Jews gather to kill their enemies (9:14–19). However, the battles are not an end in themselves but the means whereby the final goal is achieved, namely, the institution of the feast of Purim. Our structure underscores the figure of Mordecai who grows as a character independent from Esther. Previously she had introduced him to the king (8:1) and had given Haman’s property to her cousin (8:2). The Jews also grow in stature and become the central actors of our pericope. Esther again appears in her role of intermediary between the Jewish people and the established power of the empire. The syntactical analysis emphasises two instances of 9:1–19 in which the execution of orders is connected to the desires and wishes of either the whole community (“they did with their enemies as they wanted”, 9:5) or the individual (Esther’s requests are implemented literally, 9:14 cf. 9:13). Thus the story is no longer commanded by the Persian authority but by the will of the Jews. 3

Thorny Questions about Chapter 9

Out of all the chapters of the Meghillah, none has raised as many contested issues as chapter 9. We shall review the matters that in our view are the most relevant for the understanding of this chapter. There is no certainty about the origin of the material making up Esther 9. However it cannot be denied that the book as it stands is the work of the final redactor who put together all the data available to him in order to justify and encourage the celebration of Purim.36 35   T.K. Beal, Esther, 111: “As an introduction to chapters 9 and 10, 9:1–4 indicates that what follows is not simply a matter of bloody vengeance but a matter of political mastery”. 36  A. Berlin, Esther, 83; cf. H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 179.

200

CHAPTER 6

3.1 Description of Characters When the reader encounters chapter 9 he or she has an idea of who are the main characters of the story of Esther and how they relate to each other. At the level of characterisation, however, chapter 9 poses the question about continuity or disruption with what has preceded. This chapter develops the characters of Esther, Mordecai, Ahasuerus, and the Jews. Even though both Jewish leaders are left to deal with the organisation of their compatriots’ actions, the main actors of Esther 9 are the Jewish people who gain their own independence.37 Esther appears as the military mastermind of the Jewish attacks. She asked for the first day of fighting and given the chance, she renewed her request by demanding another day of battle. She is named “Esther the queen” (9:12) and her conversation with the king is businesslike.38 Nonetheless she still works within the boundaries of the kingdom when she asks for a second day of fighting following the first decree (8:9–12). In this instance she does not command, but instead she facilitates circumstances by submitting to the established authority in order to maintain the status quo. At the same time Esther manoeuvres the king once more to agree with the wishes of the Jews as expressed in the first decree written by Mordecai (8:9). In this way the queen first asserts the authority and importance of Mordecai in the Diasporic community and secondly yields to Persian rule in order to save the Jewish people. The monarch’s intervention: “In the citadel of Susa the Jews have killed and annihilated five hundred men and Haman’s ten children; in the remaining provinces of the king, what have they done?” (9:12) characterises him as being unaware of what is going on in his kingdom. This statement is also a masterpiece of irony by which Ahasuerus is portrayed as having a very shallow understanding because he only sees the casualties and not the liberation experienced by the Jews.39 Then Ahasuerus asks the queen what her requests and desires are. In reply she begs for a second day of warfare and for Haman’s ten children to be hanged. The result is a new decree which is promulgated by the king: “and the king ordered that it should be done like this (‫אמר ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְל ֵה ָעׂשֹות‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ֑ ָ ‫( ”)וַ ִּתּנָ ֵ ֥תן ָ ּ֖דת ְּב‬9:14). Therefore nei‫ ) ֵּכן‬and the decree was granted in Susa (‫ׁשּוׁשן‬ ther Esther nor Mordecai are legally responsible for the second day of fighting.40

37  According to Vialle, chapter 9 should be taken as it has been transmitted and as a way of characterising personages, cf. C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 62. 38   L.M. Day, Three Faces of a Queen, 157. 39  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 112. 40  This is against Fox for whom “Esther seems harder, blunter, even crueller” (M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 116).

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

201

The king is solely culpable for the order, even though attention is diverted from him because the order is constructed in the passive voice. Once the decree is promulgated, the Jews become active players in the drama because the crisis that was forged in the court needs to be resolved out in the streets. The conflict, which started as an internal battle between Haman and Mordecai, is now extrapolated to their own subordinates and followers. The Jews are the protagonists of this chapter and are mentioned 13 times (9:1 [x2].2.3.5.6.10.12.13.15.16.18.19). For the first time the narrator makes them grammatical subjects of several verbs such as: “to gain mastery” (9:1); “to gather” (9:2); “to smite, to kill and to destroy” (9:5); “to rest and to make a day of rejoicing” (9:17–18). Whereas before they obeyed their leaders (4:3.16) now they take an active role in their own salvation41 and must deliver themselves. Even though they respond to their leaders they also show their own independence by not taking the spoils. The Jews are self reliant as already enunciated by Mordecai when he said to Esther: “For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (4:14). They have come of age and do not need the tutelage of their leaders. The piloting of the events relies on Esther and Mordecai whereas enacting them is the people’s own doing. Through a decree which expresses the law of the land, the empire allows the Jews to become a people by sanctioning the use of violence. The use of violence in Esther 9 makes the Jews into a nation with its own rights and its own defence arsenal. Violence defines the Jews as a people acting as independently as the state allows them showing that it is possible to retain one’s autonomy despite being in someone else’s kingdom. The first intention of the Jewish leaders is that Haman’s decree should be abrogated, but given the immutability of Persian law (8:8)42 it is the State that pushes its subjects to the use of violence. The Jews come together once more (9:15), and again, in the face of persecution and the need for defence, their ethnic identity grows. In chapter 4 fasting made them grow whereas in chapter 9 violence makes the people one in preparation and also in celebration. By putting the decree into action, the Jews are not racist, xenophobic or bigots as some authors have made them out to be.43 41  G. Gerleman, Esther, 131. 42  A-Text solves the problem by allowing the decree to be removed. 43  For a summary of different views, see E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible, 215–218.

202

CHAPTER 6

They are interested in defending themselves and not in blotting out any race or people. The only race that is totally eradicated is Haman and his children which, as we have already discussed,44 are descendants of the Amalekites.45 Thus the divine commandments of not forgetting Amalek’s crimes and eliminating his memory are fulfilled (Deut 25:17–19). By narrating the Jewish acts of violence, the author also describes the Persians with irony because being aware that the Jews are now armed and ready to stand for their lives, who would be so stupid as to oppose them? The answer is 800 Persians in Susa and 75,000 in the empire,46 even though “such numbers are historically unbelievable but ironically believable, for the strategy of exaggeration heightens the absurdity and incongruity of the tale—the very heart of irony”.47 Having acquired the political power to defend themselves, the Jews exercise their authority when they establish the Purim holiday. This type of celebration stands in contrast with the Hellenistic and Persian customs.48 The establishment of Purim describes how the partnership between the Jewish people and their leaders develops whereby the leaders’ role is to confirm what the people have already decided.49 The source of the holiday is neither God nor the rulers but only the people whose decisions are then ratified by their leaders. The authority of the people derives from winning the battle. The leaders only have “to confirm” (9:30), that is, to validate a decision of a previously declared intention (cf. Ru 4:7; Ps 119:106). Therefore chapter 9 is the logical development of the preceding account. Esther, Mordecai, Ahasuerus and the Jewish people are described in similar terms to the ones used in the Meghillah. The administrative power and decision-making rely on the king. He acts under the advice of his wife and her cousin whilst the executive power is given to the Jewish people. In this way, the transfer of authority from the Persians to the Jews, started earlier in the book (8:1–3), comes to an end. 44  See above chapter 1 §3.4. 45  Cf. M.-T. Wacker, “Tödliche Gewalt”, 623–624. 46   B.W. Jones, “Two Misconceptions”, 180. 47  S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies”, 21. 48  J.-D. Macchi, “Lettres de fête et réécriture”, 60: “la description massorétique des pratiques des 14 et 15 Adar ne se contente pas d’établir ce modèle de banquet par opposition aux pratiques perses et hellénistiques mais en fait une pratique spécifiquement et positivement juive”. 49  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 227–228.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

203

3.2 Interpretation Esther 9 has been interpreted in different ways. The fundamentalist reading of the events recounted in this chapter has led to several episodes of radical violence in Israel and elsewhere,50 such as the massacre of 29 Muslims by Baruch Goldstein on Purim in 1994. In the past, mid-nineteenth century English Protestants interpreted the events of Purim in the light of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot51 and also during the Second World War current events were understood in the light of the Purim festivity. Some commentators justify the violence described in Esther 9 as a case of legitimate defence.52 Those who do not hold this view, however, point out several features which make this account a massacre. These features are: the large number of casualties; the non-Jews’ disobedience to the first decree; and the Persian officials’ friendship with Mordecai. If all these conditions are true, the logical conclusion requires that the fight is a slaughter rather than a combat because the Jews did what they pleased with their enemies.53 Hence, according to Clines what happened in Esther 9 is cruel and unjust.54 Other scholars interpret the killings as an example of retributive justice.55 Those to be killed are not all those who are not Jews but those who sought to harm the Jews (9:1.2.5).56 However, there is no record of the Persians doing anything against the Jews. In this viewpoint, the only one who deserves a punishment is Haman for devising the plan against all the Jews. This view is taken by those who say that the massacre is to be understood as the end of the AmalekIsrael conflict.57 The enmity between Israelites and Amalekites started as a personal fight between two families set in opposition from the beginning of biblical times. If we take this position, one could justify the hanging of Haman and his ten children but would find it difficult to account for the other killings. A further interpretation can be provided by comparing the biblical account with contemporary Greek literature. Herodotus recounts that violence was used in Persia against rebels with the result of the establishing of a public

50  Cf. E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 1–12. 51  Cf. J. Carruthers, Esther, 255–256. 52  Cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 90; T.K. Beal, The Book of Hiding, 104–105. 53  Cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 21–22. 54  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 159. 55  E. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading”, 236. 56  J. Grossman, Esther, 191. 57  J.-D. Macchi, “Haman, l’orgueilleux”, 202.

204

CHAPTER 6

festival.58 This has been hailed as a possible parallel to the events of Esther 9.59 However when comparing the biblical account with Herodotus’s, there are two important differences in the description of violence and the celebration that follows. First, the biblical account is less gory, because it lacks interest in how something happened. Interest is shifted to the effects of the actions, in empathy with the actors of the drama and in greater sympathy with them. Second, the genre of both accounts is different: while Herodotus provides a chronicle, the author of Esther produces a farcical comedy. Yet another group explains the massacre through the means of literary genre60 saying that this story is a comic, farcical, carnivalesque account characterised by exaggeration, tumultuous riots and mock-destruction. This explanation is more acceptable in the spirit of the feast of Purim and because of the presence of irony in the account. Irony is expressed by the number of people killed which borders on the absurd. This chapter is fun and should not be taken either as a detailed account of something that happened in antiquity or as an excuse for something that should be relived in the present age. In the same way that the carnivalesque features of a play produce astonishment at first and then enjoyment, Esther 9 should produce these reactions in a reader who does not take its contents too seriously. 4 Commentary The author’s intention in 9:1–19 is to justify the Jewish liturgical practice in all the empire. This abbreviated chronicle of a conflict follows the biblical pattern in which importance is not given to the detailed account of what happens but rather to the description of the situation resulting from the fight.61 For example the battle is not described (9:6–10) nor the support that the officials 58  Herodotus, Histories, 3:79: “When the Persians learnt of the hoax the Magi had practised and realized that whe seven had done, they decided to follow their lead; they drew their daggers and began to kill any Magi they could find, and if night had not intervened they would not have left a single one alive. This is now the most important day of the year in the Persian public calendar, and they spend it celebrating a major festival which they call the Magophonia. During the festival, no Magus is allowed to appear outdoors; they have to stay inside their houses all day long” (cf. Ctesias Persica, F13 (16–18)). 59  A. Berlin, Esther, 82. 60  Cf. W.W. Hallo, “The First Purim”, 25; K. Craig, Reading Esther, 135–136; A. Berlin, Esther, 81. Jones argues that humour and irony is the key to understanding the Scroll, B.W. Jones, “Two Misconceptions”, 177–181. 61   H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 182.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

205

provide to the Jews (cf. 9:4) nor the reason why there should be people in the empire that were contrary to the Jews. In other words, the author analyses the effects of victory, such as rest from the enemies, in a manner that makes him less independent and more pro-Jewish.62 4.1 Background Information (9:1–4) 4.1.1 Summary of Actions (9:1) In a beautifully crafted sentence,63 the author makes a summary of the main argument of the whole book (9:1).64 The reader is reminded that most of the narrative has been coloured by Haman’s edict decreeing that the Jews should be eliminated (3:12–13). Once the promoter of this idea is no longer alive (7:10), his ideas still survive but now can be contested. The fight is now between those who believe in Haman’s view and those who follow Mordecai’s edict. Incidentally, chapter 9 does not mention either documents but refers to the written ruling as the king’s word and his decree (‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ָדתֹו‬ ַ ‫ ) ְּד ַב‬exonerating both viziers of any responsibilities in the matter. Moreover the author represents the Jewish perspective underlining that only the second decree is important,65 so only the events in which Jews are the agents are recounted. At this point the question is not whether or not the Jews will conquer but how will they do it.66 In 9:1, we read: “In the twelfth month, that is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day when the king’s word and his decree were promulgated to be executed (‫ר־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך וְ ָדתֹו ְל ֵה ָעׂשֹות‬ ַ ‫ ;) ִהּגִ ַיע ְּד ַב‬on that very day in which the enemies of the Jews thought they would gain mastery over them (‫ִׂש ְּברּו א ֵֹיְבי‬ ‫הּודים ִל ְׁשלֹוט ָּב ֶהם‬ ִ ְ‫) ַהּי‬, everything was changed (‫ )וְ נַ ֲהפֹוְך‬and the Jews gained mastery over their enemies (‫הּודים ֵה ָּמה ְּבׂש ֹנְ ֵא ֶיהם‬ ִ ְ‫”)יִ ְׁש ְלטּו ַהּי‬. This verse summarises the whole story with two verbs which appear for the first time in the Meghillah: “to change” (‫ )הפְך‬and “to gain mastery” (‫)ׁשלט‬. The sentence “everything was changed” acts as the main clause of this verse and is loaded with plenty of nuances which are further developed in what follows. The normal syntactical order is changed and there are a series of subordinate clauses round the main clause. For example, the sentence “everything 62   L.M. Day, Esther, 144. 63  According to Gerleman, this is one of the most syntactically complicated verses in the Meghillah (G. Gerleman, Esther, 131); cf. R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 227–228. 64  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 357: “El autor resume en este verso ‘la tesis del libro’, si es que se nos permite hablar de tesis”. 65  D.J.A. Clines, Esther, 320. 66   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 108: “By stating the scene’s outcome at its beginning and submerging the high point in a parenthesis, the author eliminates suspense”.

206

CHAPTER 6

was changed” is explained by a clause of result: “the Jews gained mastery over their enemies”.67 Thus, even though all through the Meghillah the peripeteian principle has been applied, here it is openly enunciated.68 The concept of gaining mastery over the others is present in the Meghillah from the beginning of the story. For instance, the first crisis in the book is about who has power over the people. Ahasuerus seems to dominate everyone and then Vashti rebels against him. This threat made the king rule that “every man should be master in his own house” (1:22). Later in the story, Haman is given power over all people who bow down to him until he finds Mordecai who refuses to pay him homage. Then Haman tries to exercise his authority and decides the fate of all the Jews, choosing to eliminate Mordecai before all his kin. As the story develops, Haman’s condemnation results from his supposed attempt to subjugate the queen in order to take over power in the kingdom (7:8).69 The pre-eminence of “gaining mastery” is picked up by the summary of 9:1. Hence, in the same way as the vizier was condemned for his desire to overpower the establishment, all his followers are also sentenced for the same reason. And through an act of violence the book of Esther proclaims that the only ones who are allowed to have control over the Persian empire are the Jews who physically gain dominion over their enemies. At the same time, Esther exercises her influence over Ahasuerus who does whatever she tells him. Gaining mastery for the Jews in chapter 9 is a synonym of both “killing”70 and “doing with their enemies as they wished” so that a new status of honour and dominion is established. Previously the author had expressed Mordecai’s dominion by receiving the attributes of power (8:2), promulgating a decree (8:10–12) and being acclaimed by all the members of the empire (8:15–17). In the same way that the people followed their leader in mourning their fate (4:1–3) now they follow him in taking a position of power71 because what has been said about Mordecai can be equally applied to his people. 4.1.2 The Decree in Action (9:2) “The Jews gathered in their cities in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their evil (‫ֹלח יָ ד ִּב ְמ ַב ְק ֵׁשי ָר ָע ָתם‬ ַ ‫( ”) ִל ְׁש‬9:2). In this way, the Jews using the right to self defence given to them by Mordecai’s decree 67   F.W. Bush, Esther, 460. 68  Cf. T.K. Beal, Esther, 109–110. 69  See above, chapter 5 § 4.3.3. 70   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 108. For a different interpretation of the verb, see J.D. Levenson, Esther, 120. 71   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 120.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

207

(cf. 8:11), gather together and attack those who wanted their evil.72 Those who are attacked are those who seek to harm them and thence the Jews take revenge on those who fought against them.73 The description in chapter 9 follows Mordecai’s decree almost literally with the difference that the enemies of the Jews are not described as “those who attack” but as “those who seek their harm”.74 Nevertheless, this latter description is used in the Scriptures as a synonym for an attack (cf. Num 35:23; 1 Sam 24:10; 25:26). This is the literal evidence that the bloodbath is not discriminatory but the Jews only retaliate against those who had attacked them following Haman’s decree.75 The gathering of the Jews allowed by the king recalls their previous assembly in chapter 4 at Esther’s command when she asks them to fast on her behalf: “Go, gather (‫ ) ְּכנֹוס‬all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf (‫( ”)וְ ֣צּומּו ָע ַלי‬4:16). Both gatherings have to do with the salvation of the Jewish people. Whereas the first act of the Jews all together was to support the queen as she met the king, the second is an assembly to save themselves by their own hands. Whilst the first congregation of the Jews took place in Susa, the second happens in “their cities” (‫) ָע ֵר ֶיהם‬. This however does not imply that the Jews ruled over towns or villages of their own.76 Instead the expression must refer to those cities, towns and villages in which there is a Jewish presence.77 By the phrase “to lay hands” the story of 2:21–23 is called to mind. On that occasion the king’s life was saved by Mordecai and Esther from the eunuchs who wanted to lay hands on him. In our view, the king allows the Jews to take vengeance on their enemies following the principle of just retribution. The king’s desire therefore is to save the lives of the faithful servants who had previously defended him.78 Therefore revenge thus is the result of a decree of death which, once put into practice, exalts someone else’s life.

72   ‫ קהל‬should be considered an euphemism for combat (cf. A. Minissale, Ester, 222). 73  The study of reception history highlights the difficulties experienced by the different authors down the ages. The Jews in the medieval times found it difficult to justify the events recounted in Esth 9 and they relate them to God’s command to Joshua to eliminate the enemies of the Jews. The wars between the Scots and the English provided a different hermeneutical key because the victors interpreted their fate as a replay of the victory of the Jews over the Persians (cf. J. Carruthers, Esther, 256–265). 74  Whereas we consider these two expressions virtually synonyms, Clines notes a difference: “ ‘attack’ is a physical act, ‘seek the harm’ may be solely volitional” (D.J.A. Clines, Esther, 321). 75  G. Gerleman, Esther, 132. 76  A. Berlin, Esther, 83; contrary to what Clines claims, D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 46. 77   F.W. Bush, Esther, 461. 78   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 120.

208

CHAPTER 6

ָ ֹ ‫ל‬, The enemies of the Jews could not resist their assault (‫א־ע ַמד ִל ְפנֵ ֶיהם‬ cf. Judg 2:14; Dan 11:16) because of fear. The description of the Persians not standing up to the Jewish attacks does not imply a lack of resistance on their part.79 They must have struck the Jews who are described as more powerful than their opponents. The Jewish secret weapon is fear, which seems to go in crescendo. Fear is mentioned three times spreading widely through Persian society: first the people of the land are afraid (8:17), then all the people succumb to panic (9:2) and finally all the members of the administration are overtaken by dread (9:3).80 The Near Eastern monarchies were partially ruled by fear because everything depended on the whims of the monarch or those who were under him.81 In our case, the reign of terror is instituted also in the governing structures (9:3) and due to such a fear the Jews prosper.82 The prosperity of the Jews, though, is met with the opposition of their enemies who attacked them in accordance with the decree of 3:13 but were easily defeated because of fear. Yet why do the Persians fear the Jews? They are a minority in the midst of a mighty empire. Whilst in other places of the Scriptures the enemies of the Jews are afraid of them because of God (cf. Exod 15:14–16; Josh 2:8–11), there is no mention of the divine here. A possible explanation is that the author of Esther desacralises the concept of holy war while at the same time referring in a veiled way to the fear of the divine.83 Another way of interpreting this verse is by studying some of its expressions and relating them to their counterparts present elsewhere in the Scripture. The expression “the fear of them had fallen upon all of the peoples” is found in a psalm which retells the exodus experience (Ps 105:38): “Egypt was glad when they departed, for dread of them had fallen upon it (‫”) ִּכי־נָ ַפל ַּפ ְח ָּדם ֲע ֵל ֶיהם‬.84 Psalm 105 is a historical psalm and, by alluding to it, the author of Esther wants to set the Meghillah within that sacred history. At the same time he might be slightly critical of the Jews. While the Egyptians rejoice because of the departure of the Israelites, the Persians are left in their land together with the Jews.

79   L.B. Paton, Esther, 283. 80  J. Grossman, Esther, 186. 81  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 358. 82  Minissale interprets this fear as a sign of divine intervention and a characteristic of holy war. In his view, other features of the tale such as the concept of rest are also signs of the divine (cf. A. Minissale, Ester, 223.225; cf. H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 182; A.-M. Wetter, “On her Account”, 113). If it is true that the Jews are dangerous, fear is an apt response to this danger. 83  G. Gerleman, Esther, 132. Cf. D.J.A. Clines, Esther, 322. 84  The expression ‫יהם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫ ִּכי־נָ ַפל ַּפ ְח ָ ּ֣דם ֲע ֵל‬only appears in Esth 9:2 and Ps 105:38.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

209

The thrust in Esther is not return to the homeland but rejoicing because the Jews are free to dwell in the land of the Diaspora.85 Another text called to mind by the expression “no one withstood them” is the summary made by the author of the book of Joshua (Josh 21:43–45). According to Grossman we find also here an allusion to the period of the conquest and settlement when the Israelites went back to their own land. Unlike that primordial time, the author of Esther would want to denounce the situation whereby the Jews now remain in exile under the power of the oppressors86 refusing to go back to the Promised Land. Notwithstanding these explanations, the reference to fear is most probably another element of the farcical character of the story.87 There is no other reason why a powerful empire could fall to a small minority in its midst than a humorous take on the Persians and on all the enemies of the Jews. Nonetheless one of the running themes in the book is the threat of death. It comes equally on the Jews and the Persians but is dealt with differently by each group. Whereas the behaviour of the Jews falls within the different forms of mourning (‫)אבל‬, the Persians’ actions are inspired by fear (‫)פחד‬. Moreover, the Jewish mourning is preceded by a general commotion (“the city of Susa was perplexed [‫בֹוכה‬ ָ ָ‫”]נ‬, 3:15) which nonetheless moves Mordecai to plead for Esther’s help. On the other hand, the Persian fear makes them collaborators with the Jewish regime. Therefore all the expressions of fear in the Meghillah work, in their own way, for the salvation and survival of the Jewish nation. 4.1.3 Administration at Work (9:3–4) The Persian empire was well organised. The classical sources describe how king Darius set up a network of satrapies or large administrative divisions entrusted to a satrap.88 These larger administrative divisions were subdivided into smaller portions which in most cases respected the previously established order of the conquered people.89 In the book of Esther, the king’s edicts are addressed to the satraps (‫;) ֲא ַח ְׁש ַּד ְר ְּפנִ ים‬90 the governors (‫ ) ַּפחֹות‬who ruled the 85  J. Grossman, Esther, 187. 86  J. Grossman, Esther, 188. 87  A. Berlin, Esther, 87. 88  Darius “established within the Persian empire twenty provinces, or satrapies, as the Persians call them” (Herodotus, Histories, III, 89). 89  For further information about the territorial organisation of the Persian empire, see P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 76–78; 402–406. 90  Etymologically satrap means “protector of the realm [kingdom]” (P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 76).

210

CHAPTER 6

provinces or city states within a satrapy; and the princes (‫ ) ָׂש ִרים‬who were the heads of less formally constituted entities, such as ethnic or tribal groups.91 The satrap was mainly the king’s representative and his main functions were administrative, judicial, diplomatic and military, maintaining order and extending Persian dominion.92 The satraps were placed alongside the governors as promoters of the Jewish interests. A similar arrangement to Esther’s is attested by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in which the latter is described as a governor (‫ ) ֶּפ ָחם‬of the province of Yehud (Neh 5:14; cf. Ezra 8:36) with the special task of rebuilding the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 5:15–19; cf. Ezra 7:12–26). Under the satraps and the governors different princes or rulers (‫ ) ַׂשר‬of other groups are mentioned, such as the rulers of the priests (Ezra 10:5), of the army (Neh 2:9) or of the people (Ezra 10:14). The apparent “reign of terror” has as its result that the threefold levels of imperial administration help the Jews. These members of the royal government are those who were already mentioned as recipients of the two imperial decrees (3:12; 8:9). In 3:12 and 8:9, these officials are mentioned in descending order:93 satrap, governor and prince, going from those in charge of larger territories to those of smaller units. The list in 9:3 though refers to them in a different order (princes, satraps and governors). In this instance they are in order of descending importance as seen from the Jewish point of view.94 The narrator seems to say that the first ones to assist the Jews were the local rulers. There is a fourth category in 9:3 which was not present in the previous listings: “those who worked for the king” (‫אכה‬ ָ ‫)ע ֵֹׂשי ַה ְּמ ָל‬. These stewards might have had the function of receiving state revenues and overseeing payment for work on government projects.95 In this way, the author expresses the total support that the Jews had. Further “those who worked for the king” were the ones who would have received Haman’s bribe after the decree of pogrom was requested (cf. 3:9). Hence by mentioning those who from an administrative point of view, had a part in the annihilation of the Jews, the author is acquitting them. He also reverses the role of all who legally supported the decree. We have already shown how some of the officials/eunuchs of the court were 91  D.J.A. Clines, Esther, 297. 92  Cf. P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 90–96. 93  Incidentally Mordecai’s decree is addressed not only to ruling authorities but also to the “Jews” as a body (8:9). They do not need rulers as the Persians do, cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 228. 94   F.W. Bush, Esther, 462. 95  A. Berlin, Esther, 41.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

211

in favour of the Jews such as Harbonah (cf. 7:8).96 Now, under the shadow of violence, the whole of the court administration supports the Jewish cause. The Jews are aided (‫הּודים‬ ִ ְ‫ת־הּי‬ ַ ‫ ) ְמנַ ְּׂש ִאים ֶא‬by all the people and especially their officials. A similar expression with the same meaning of help appears in Cyrus’ decree allowing the captives to return to the Promised Land (Ezra 1:4; cf. 8:36). However the author of the Meghillah does not describe the kind of help provided. We can hint at what this help was by comparing the use of the verb ‫ נׂשא‬elsewhere in the Scroll. The verb ‫ נׂשא‬previously described Esther gaining favour from all who saw her (2:15), especially Ahasuerus (2:17; 5:2). Moreover it is most significant that ‫ נׂשא‬is conjugated in 9:3 as a piel participle, the same conjugation which had been employed to describe the rise of Haman (3:1; 5:11). As he was promoted, Mordecai refused to accept this elevation. The result was the enragement of the Agagite and the subsequent decree of annihilation of the Jews signed by the king and supported by some of the Persians. In chapter 9, though, the king’s officials promote the Jews and their cause after Mordecai’s ascent (8:2). In this way chapter 9 describes the way in which the history of the Jews comes as a reversal of what had happened to Haman.97 Therefore we can affirm that the verb ‫ נׂשא‬here is used to explain what was described by ‫ הפך‬in 9:1. Having mentioned all the members of the administration, Mordecai is fitted in as being above all of them: “because Mordecai was important in the king’s household and his name was growing in all the provinces because the man Mordecai grew more and more important” (9:4). This verse is a well crafted construction of three clauses with the inclusio of the root ‫גדֹול‬. Let us read each clause independently. 1. Because Mordecai was important (‫) ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי ִּכי־גָ דֹול‬ in the king’s household; 2. and his name was growing in all the provinces (‫ל־ה ְּמ ִדינֹות‬ ַ ‫הֹולְך ְּב ָכ‬ ֵ ‫ְוׁש ְמעֹו‬ ָ ); 3. because the man Mordecai grew more and more important (‫הֹולְך וְ גָ דֹול‬ ֵ ‫י־ה ִאיׁש ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי‬ ָ ‫) ִּכ‬. Clauses 1 and 3 are constructed similarly with ‫ ִּכי‬at the beginning while 2 and 3 share the participle ‫הֹולְך‬ ֵ . In this way verse 4 is the hinge of 9:1–19 and the explanation of why Mordecai was feared. Mordecai is portrayed as “the man Mordecai” (‫) ָה ִאיׁש ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי‬. This introduction stands in contrast with the description given elsewhere in the Meghillah. All through the Scroll Mordecai is “a Jew”. The description in chapter 9 recalls his first appearance as “a Jewish man” (‫הּודי‬ ִ ְ‫ ִאיׁש י‬2:4). There is therefore a development in the character of Mordecai and in his personal status from being a mere exile to being a high ranking official in the imperial court.98 Mordecai is portrayed as the leader of the exilic community in a similar manner to the 96  See chapter 5 §4.4. 97   T.K. Beal, Esther, 110; cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 120. 98   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 121; A. Berlin, Esther, 84.

212

CHAPTER 6

man Moses, who “was very great” (‫ ָה ִ ֣איׁש מ ֶֹׁ֗שה ּגָ ֤דֹול ְמאֹד‬cf. Exod 11:3; 32:1.23; Num 12:3)99 and was acclaimed as the leader of the people of Israel. In this way the author is presenting Mordecai subtly as a successor of Moses in both his facets of leader and liberator of the people. Also the last mention of the word man (‫ ) ִאיׁש‬in the scroll is Esther’s description of Haman as “the man who is an adversary and an enemy” (‫ ִאיׁש ַצר וְ אֹויֵב‬, 7:6). So we can conclude that Mordecai is also to be compared and contrasted with the Agagite. A further point of comparison is subtly put forward by the sentence ‫( ָמ ְר ֳּד ַכי ִּכי־גָ דֹול‬9:4). The root ‫ גדֹול‬describes a variety of circumstances in the Meghillah such as wealth and riches (1:4; 6:3). Its most prominent use refers to political power (3:1). Hence the change heralded in 9:1 and summarised by the expression “to gain mastery” is expressed now as a case of political overturn. Whereas the king imposes political power on Haman (3:1) Mordecai gains it from the people both Persians and Jews (9:4; 10:3). Mordecai’s fame continues to grow in a manner which is not recorded of Haman’s. All the same Haman must have had supporters in the empire who knew about his plans and backed them up. These supporters began fearing that their position would be jeopardised by the new regime under Mordecai. This might have been the reason for their sudden support. Unlike anything that is said about Haman, Mordecai’s leadership is recorded in the annals of the kingdom (10:2)100 and consequently we have another instance of violence being the reason why a Jew is inscribed in the official history of the kingdoms of Media and Persia (cf. 2:23).101 Mordecai’s rising and the influence of the Jewish people is described in the same manner as the rising of Haman. Consequently the events of chapter 9 are not to be understood as “a matter of bloody vengeance but a matter of political mastery”.102 As the “fear of the Jews” made the Persians sympathetic towards them, the “fear of Mordecai” (‫ד־מ ְר ֳּד ַ ֖כי‬ ָ ‫ ) ַ ּֽפ ַח‬made all the Persian rulers help the Jews (9:3). In this instance fear should be taken to mean respect because Mordecai had ascended in the Persian court (9:4). The courtiers behaved in this manner

99  Cf. G. Gerleman, Esther, 11–23. 100  The statements in 10:2.3 are thus prepared by 9:4, cf. W. Dommershausen, Die Estherrolle, 113–114. 101  Grossman is critical of this description of greatness in the book of Esther and sees it as an ambiguous way of describing Mordecai. Since both Mordecai and Haman share the same description the author intends to convey the idea that they might share the same fate, cf. J. Grossman, Esther, 215–216. 102   T.K. Beal, Esther, 111.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

213

because they had realised that the balance of power had tilted in favour of Mordecai and the Jews and that it was dangerous to oppose them. However, it is obvious that this dread is yet another example of irony and not an historical fact. It is improbable that the all-powerful Persian empire would be disadvantaged against a small Jewish presence.103 Some authors interpret this fear as an example of religious feelings in the Meghillah.104 In our opinion this cannot be the case because in the story there is no mention of God and there is an objective physical threat to the Persians resulting in their fear and their offer of assistance (9:3). 4.2 First Action (9:5–11) The actions exposed in 9:5 are defensive and justified.105 Their description is repeated in 9:6 in which the same roots are used for the account of the slaughtering. This repetition follows the same style as the doublings in chapters 1 and 2 in which the luxury of the banquets is underlined. In both cases, the excessive exaggeration makes the reader detach him or herself from the account.106 4.2.1 The Killings Begin (9:5) Having provided some background information, the author starts by offering the details of the Jewish defence against the Persian attack:107 “And the Jews smote all their enemies by the sword and killed and destroyed and they did with their enemies as they wanted” (9:5). This verse follows logically from 9:2. Moreover it becomes one of the most difficult verses to interpret in the whole of the Meghillah to the point that neither of the Greek versions includes it.108 103  A. Berlin, Esther, 81. 104  Cf. D. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 40–41. However, ‫ פחד‬refers firstly to the fear experienced when facing human enemies and not only when confronted with an experience of the divine (cf. 1 Sam 11:7; Ps 105:38). 105  Cf. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 220–226. 106  Cf. R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 230–231. 107   Contra Vílchez who writes that the Jews fought and killed without being provoked (cf. J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 358–359). 108  J. Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted, 339–340: “Verse 5 of the MT is absent from the LXX, it is probable that it was intentionally left out because v. 2 of the MT already refers to the killings of the enemies (‫)לׁשלח יד‬. There may also be a tendency to leave out the details because v.5 may easily give the impression that the Jews were brutally slaughtering their enemies as soon as they receive permission to defend themselves. That we can see the same tendency in Esth 8:11, which corroborates the idea that the Greek translation does not omit just for stylistic reasons but also because the translator may have been offended by the brutality that Hebrew Vorlage implies”.

214

CHAPTER 6

The author draws his vocabulary from Haman’s decree. In chapter 3 we find verbal forms (‫ ַל ֲהר ֹג ְּול ַא ֵּבד‬3:13; cf. 8:11) whereas here the nominal forms (‫וְ ֶה ֶרג‬ ‫ )וְ ַא ְב ָדן‬are proposed. The rhetorical device of mentioning the same roots in the narrative as in the decrees highlights the reversal enunciated in 9:1.109 Some people might find the description problematic that “the Jews did with their enemies as they wanted”. A first reading would suggest that they did whatever came into their mind chaotically,110 however we do not share this simplistic view. The only other instance of the word ‫ ָרצֹון‬in the Meghillah is found in the description of drinking at the first banquet: “And drinking was according to the law (‫) ַכ ָּדת‬, no one was compelled; for the king had given orders to all the officials of his palace to do as every man desired (‫”) ַל ֲעׂשֹות ִּכ ְרצֹון ִאיׁש־וָ ִאיׁש‬ (1:8). Therefore, in the mind of the author doing as one pleases is regulated by a royal law and, just as drinking was curtailed by an edict, so too is violence. The idea of doing as one wants in the context of an irresistible military force is also present elsewhere in Scripture (Neh 9:24; Dan 11:3.16.36). For example, in Daniel this idea is twinned with that of confronting (standing up to) one’s enemies: “But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will (‫) ִּכ ְרצֹונֹו‬, and none shall stand up (‫עֹומד ְל ָפנָ יו‬ ֵ ‫ )וְ ֵאין‬before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and all of it shall be in his power” (Dan 11:16). Some of these words and ideas have a resonance elsewhere in Esther. Ahasuerus granted permission to Haman to do with the people as it seemed good to him (‫ַל ֲעׂשֹות ּבֹו‬ ‫ ַּכּטֹוב ְּב ֵעינֶ יָך‬3:11) and the vizier wrote the decree of pogrom. Subsequently, in chapter 9 the same prerogative was granted to the Jews who implemented it within the limits of the law. Hence both Haman and the Jews can do as they want with their opponents. However, whilst the vizier decrees indiscriminate killings, the Jewish people fight only against those who oppose them. In this way the Agagite is described in a more negative way because his own whims drive his decisions whereas the Jews are restricted by a more objective rule. We are faced with another example of reversal. 4.2.2 Casualties Counted (9:6–11) The syntactical structure of verse 11 underscores that the account is not a chronicle of what happened but an aetiology.111 It is impossible that there were 109  R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 229. 110  Against Paton for whom the Jews went beyond self defence with the result that “all those who were known to be hostile to the Jews were hunted out and killed” (L.B. Paton, Esther, 283). Moore is of the same idea; for him doing as they wanted means that “some Jews, at least, were given a free hand by the authorities and did not confine themselves to selfdefense” (C.A. Moore, Esther, 90). 111  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 360.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

215

no Jewish dead and that the Persians allowed themselves to be killed without inflicting any death on those who attack them. There seems to be an ideological reason behind the behaviour of both Persians and Jews who wait in an orderly manner until the appointed time for the battle. The lives and deaths of people are regulated by the laws of the land. In the context of the aetiology there is no reason for mentioning the Jewish victims. If the feast of Purim predates the Meghillah, these verses provide the explanation for its celebration. The number of casualties is noteworthy and reveals that there must have been a considerable number of Jews in the citadel of Susa (cf. 4:16).112 The numbers of the fallen, however, are historically improvable but ironically credible.113 In this instance, the exaggerated number of dead in the citadel of Susa is not matched by any Jewish deaths. One explanation might be that since the Persian victims are so much more numerous than the Jewish deaths, the latter’s disappearance seems insignificant. By giving a precise number of casualties, the author brings us back from the happenings in the provinces to the citadel of Susa.114 The account is obviously not a historical chronicle of some anti-Semitic adventures but a work of fiction115 with plenty of exaggeration.116 The author is not interested in all the gruesome details but in the resolution of the problem which is at the basis of our story. The killings received royal sanction both by Mordecai’s decree and by the king’s speech to Esther recalling the same decree (9:6.12). The number of those killed in the citadel of Susa is inflated and underscores the fact that, despite having supporters (3:15; 8:15.17), the Jews found a considerable opposition in the centre of power.117 Compared with the battle reports in the books of Kings, Esther does not follow the Deuteronomistic, scriptural model.118 The author enunciates the idea of totality in 9:5 in which those killed are “all the enemies” (‫ ָכל־א ֵֹיְב ֶיהם‬9:5). As the story unfolds the number and origin of those killed are given little by little, providing an image of measure. Thus in 112   L.B. Paton, Esther, 284. 113  S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies”, 21. 114  Note that there is a difference between the city (‫ ) ִעיר‬of Susa and its citadel (‫ ) ִּב ָירה‬as described in 3:15, cf. P. Abadie, La reine masquée, 149. 115   W.J. Fuerst, Esther, 82. 116  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 359. Contrary to the view that the numbers in Esther are exaggerated, Grossman notices the casualties in other biblical battles is greater (cf. 2 Chr 13:17, king Ahijah of Israel killed 500,000 men), cf. J. Grossman, Esther, 192. 117   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 110. 118  The schematic report of a battle (Schlachtbericht) is typically organised around four moments: 1. The gathering and confrontation of the armies; 2. the battle; 3. its results, being victory or defeat; and 4. a summary statement (cf. B.O. Long, 1 Kings, 244). In Esther, only moments 3 and 4 are described, cf. C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther, 315–316.

216

CHAPTER 6

the subsequent verses the details of the victims are supplied with a specific reference to the names of Haman’s ten children. The Agagite had previously boasted of all his children (5:11), but it is not till 9:7 that they are listed by name: “Parshandatah, and Dalphon, and Aspatah, Porathah, Adalyah, Aridathah, Parmashtah, Arisay, Ariday and Yezatha” (9:7–9).119 The list of Haman’s ten children makes them illustrious members of the cast120 and it slows down the pace of the reading.121 This inventory might be modelled on the catalogue of kings of Judea defeated by Joshua (Josh 12:9–24; cf. 1 Sam 30:27–31)122 and underlines the historicity of the account. With the death of Haman’s ten children, the Agagite’s seed vanishes and the Jewish revenge on Amalek is utterly fulfilled. Haman is dishonoured completely since all the things he had boasted about have been taken away. First he had flattered himself because of the splendour of his riches and the promotions given him by the king (cf. 5:11) which are transferred to his opponent (8:1.15). Then he had spoken with pride about the number of his children who are now killed and exposed for public derision. This is the final stage of reversals whereby Haman’s fame is smashed completely and his fate is eternally decreed. In killing Haman’s children, the Jews become agents of the empire since it was the norm in the Ancient Near Eastern that when someone was dismissed the whole family suffered the same fate.123 119  For studies on the Persian/Elamite etymologies of these names, see H.S. Gehman, “Notes on the Persian Names”, 327–328; R. Zadok, “Notes on Esther”, 108–109; C.A. Moore, Esther, 87. In recent times, see H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 183–184; R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 233. 120  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 359. Note 14 recalls the scribal custom of writing the ten names in two different columns with the name on the right and ‫ וְ ֵאת‬on the left as if to recall the gibbet in which they died (cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 284; M.-T. Wacker, “Tödliche Gewalt”, 620). This stichography is a scribal practice for certain poems, but it is also used for lists in non poetic contexts (cf. Josh 12:9–24; 1 Sam 30:27–31). Further, 9:7.8.9 begin with a name whose first letter is ‫ּפ‬, is accented on the penultimate syllable and ends with ‫— ָתא‬. Verse 7 and 8 have three names whereas verse 9 four, giving the list a climactic end (cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 121–122). For some other explanations, see G. Gerleman, Esther, 133; C.A. Moore, Esther, 87; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 110, n 10; F.W. Bush, Esther, 475; R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 230 (by this arrangement the names are highlighted and so is the punishment encountered by Haman’s household); see Wahl for a summary of rabbinic interpretations of this arrangement (cf. H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 184–185). 121  When their names are read in the synagogue, however, they have to be said in a breath (B. Meghillah 16b) because all ten brothers died together, cf. J. Carruthers, Esther, 265. 122  A. Berlin, Esther, 84. 123  G. Snyman, “Narrative Rationality”, 185.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

217

As well as Haman’s children we hear of the results of the battles by means of the death toll. The aim of the battle is not to increase the Jewish possessions but to eradicate those who oppose the Jews. These can be separated into two groups; on the one hand, the traditional enemies represented by Haman and his children; and on the other, all the organised enemies of the Jews embodied by some of the Persians. If the conflict between Haman and Mordecai is to be understood as the extension of the battle between Agag and Saul, the attitude of the Persian Jews would redeem the behaviour of the Israelites of 1 Sam 15.124 A further connection between 1 Sam 15 and the Meghillah is found in the statement that the Jews “did not stretch out their hand towards the booty” (9:10.15.16).125 When the Israelites triumphed over the Amalekites, they did not put the booty to the ritual ban.126 In this way, the Jews in Persia would be putting to right the disobedience of the Saulide Israelites. Clines criticises this theory questioning why, if this was the case, Haman is not called an Agagite in this verse.127 Further, one can agree that the Jews are heirs of the Israelites, but cannot say the same about the relationship between the Persians and the Amalekites. Thus, there is no direct reversal mentioned here. With Bush we follow another explanation. The intention of the author of Esther is to underline that the Jewish reaction was not driven by greed or desire for material possessions. Their actions are rather a case of self-preservation.128 The refusal to take any booty underlines the fact that the people are free from their enemies and have not enriched themselves.129 In this way they can be considered morally righteous.130 124   A.J. Koller, Esther in Jewish Thought, 86–89. 125  According to Paul J. Kissling, however, the statement “the Jews did not stretch out their hand” is reminiscent of the account of the conquest of Jericho in the book of Joshua, cf. P.J. Kissling, “Self-defense and the Identity Formation”, 114–115. 126   C.A. Moore, Esther, 87–88; M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 115; T.K. Beal, Esther, 112; J. Magonet, “The Liberal”, 167–176; W. McKane, “A Note on Esther IX”, 260–261. However, the reversal of the Israelites’ behaviour is not complete because the Persians are not the direct descendants of the Amalekites neither is the booty utterly destroyed as the liturgical command would demand. All things being equal, their actions do reverse their ancestors’ behaviour in principle. 127  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 200 n 35. 128   F.W. Bush, Esther, 476; cf. C.A. Moore, Esther, 87; D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 160. 129  N. Calduch-Benages, “War, Violence and Revenge”, 139: “Not touching the spoils is a way of correcting the past and of affirming one’s self-sufficiency”. 130  J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 360. Wahl gives a moralising explanation whereby the Jewish attitude would make them morally superior to their enemies (H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 185).

218

CHAPTER 6

The author of Esther is very subtle in the description of the two opposed peoples and portrays both their mutual hatred as well as the ways in which they resemble each other. For example, in 8:15 the Persians become supportive of the Jews because they fear death at the hands of the new beneficiaries of the royal power. If one considers matters as described at the end of chapter 8, the disproportionate, gratuitous Jewish attack becomes a massacre and puts the Jews in a very dubious light. On the other hand, what seems to be Jewish reversal becomes an ethical problem and an example of Jewish self-criticism, whereby the Jewish self-image is heavily criticised. The final result is a mutual exchange of roles: Jews behaving like Persians and vice versa, thus cancelling the differences between them. This ironic account implies that there is no superior race.131 4.3 Dialogue between the King and the Queen (9:12–13) 4.3.1 The King’s Assessment (9:12) After the king is informed of what has happened in his kingdom he has a private audience with his wife. We are not told who reported the news to the monarch but the king’s reaction is to speak to his wife. The contents of this conversation do not follow the flow of the narrative from a literary point of view while the perplexity of the account reaches its apex for several reasons. First, all those who had died are the king’s subjects and part of the working forces of the empire. The second perplexity is expressed by the king’s open question about what happened in the empire. Such a query sets a free space for Esther to intervene and make her own request. The only reason for the narrator making the king ask the question is to give an excuse to express the aetiological nature of the second day of feasting in Susa. The question does, however, fit into the structure of the book and follows the pattern of previous dialogues between the royal couple. In order to add gravitas to the scene, both interlocutors are introduced by their official titles as “the king” and “queen Esther”. Then Ahasuerus poses a question to Esther about her desires for the fourth time: “What is your request? so that it may be granted to you. What is your wish once more? so that it may be done” (9:12). The reiteration of a royal offer to his consort becomes one of the characteristics of Ahasuerus’s dialogues with Esther. The repetition of information, which happens so often in the Meghillah, recalls the genre of comedy because one of its characteristics is the restatement of already given information.132

131  S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies”, 24. 132  A. Berlin, Esther, 85.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

219

Ahasuerus’s direct speech is a clear example of the changes produced when a narrative text is transformed into a speech.133 In his speech the king distinguishes for the first time between the events in the citadel of Susa and in the provinces of the empire. Contrary to Bush, who argues that the admiration for the Jewish onslaught is not out place with an impulsive despot who agreed to kill a people without inquiring who they were (cf. 3:12),134 we have shown that the king is favourable to the Jewish cause (8:17) and so when he wants to support the Jews the reader is not surprised. According to our interpretation, the king consented to the killing of Haman as the main foe of the Jews (7:9). Now the logical assumption is that he would agree to totally eradicate those who somehow supported or encouraged the Agagite’s decision. In order to secure a favourable world for the Jews, the book of Esther requires the removal of all evil. The king once more is submitting his rule to Esther’s wishes. There is a substantial difference though because on the previous occasions it was Esther who had come to him (5:1). Now he goes before her for instructions after he tells her what he has already done for the Jews. 4.3.2 The Queen’s Audacity (9:13) The queen’s reply adheres to the formal palatial style (1:19; 5:4.8)135 but does not follow logically upon her husband’s previous utterance. However, if understood from an aetiological perspective, Esther’s appeal gains a different significance. The queen’s request is double: first, she asks for another day in which the royal decree could be put into practice in Susa; and second she calls for Haman’s ten children to be hanged. By her first demand, the queen wants the Jews to defend themselves (cf. 8:11) and take vengeance on their enemies (8:13).136 The petition, however, is not formulated in the active, but rather in the passive voice (“let tomorrow be granted [‫ ]יִ ּנָ ֵתן‬to the Jews”, 9:12). The monarch orders that his wife’s wishes be executed. Both the order and its fulfilment are also expressed in the passive voice: the queen’s request should be done (‫ ְל ֵ ֽה ָעׂשֹות‬9:14) and the king’s command is put into practice (‫ׁשּוׁשן‬ ָ ‫ וַ ִּתּנָ ֵ ֥תן ָּדת ְּב‬9:14). As in other instances in the Meghillah, attention is shifted away from the king’s responsibility.

133  See chapter 3 §1.2. 134   F.W. Bush, Esther, 476. 135  The expression “if it pleases the king” is not a description of things happening according to the king’s good will (C.A. Moore, Esther, 88) but an example of politeness in the Scroll. 136  Paton interprets this request as an example of poor morals and the “malignant spirit of revenge more akin to the teaching of the Talmud (e.g., in Tract. ‘Abhoda Zara) than to the teaching of the OT” (L.B. Paton, Esther, 285).

220

CHAPTER 6

Esther’s second request regards the utter obliteration of Haman’s dynasty which receives the same treatment as its progenitor.137 Haman’s children are hanged in the first instance for the same reason as their father: treason against the nation. The subsequent exposition of their corpses follows the ancestral custom of total humiliation of the enemy (cf. Josh 8:29; 1 Sam 31:10)138 and is a manifestation of revenge. They are not to be hung upon any tree but upon “the” tree (‫ל־ה ֵעץ‬ ָ ‫) ַע‬, namely, the place where their father had previously been suspended.139 The exposure of the corpses would increase the fear of the Jews and act as a deterrent for those who threatened Jewish lives.140 The display of corpses was also a forensic act whereby evidence of the death was published and could be attested. Once this has happened, nothing can prevent the total triumph of Mordecai over Haman, a victory definitively sealed by the hanging of Haman’s children. 4.4 Fulfilment of the Command (9:14–19) 4.4.1 Second Day of Fighting (9:14–15) The decree is put into practice and another summary of casualties is provided. On this occasion, there are two sets of numbers that do not coincide chronologically with what happened. Esth 9:14 deals with the enactment of Ahasuerus’s decree and the actions in Susa, whereas 9:15 returns to the happenings in the provinces: “Meanwhile the remnant of the Jews who were in the king’s provinces had gathered and had defended their lives and they had rested from their enemies and they had killed seventy five thousand of their enemies but they had not stretched out their hand towards the booty”. This description could easily belong to the summary of 9:1–4,141 even though it fits well in its present position because it answers the king’s question in 9:12 about what had happened in the provinces. The information given seems rather inflated. The figure of 75,000 has a literary value and is not part of an accurate number.142 The author is interested 137   T.K. Beal, Esther, 112. 138  G. Gerleman, Esther, 134. 139   R.D. Holmstedt – J. Screnock, Esther, 237. 140   H.M. Wahl, Das Buch Esther, 186. 141   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 123. 142  A. Barucq, Esther, 130: “L’impression est d’ailleurs moins pénible si l’on fait plus grande la part de l’invention littéraire. L’auteur ne prétend certes pas soutenir le droit absolu à pareille revanche parce qu’elle serait en faveur du peuple de Dieu. Il écrit dans la vieille mentalité juive et se préoccupe surtout de faire voir que toute entreprise criminelle montée contre sa race se retournera immanquablement contre son auteur”.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

221

in the final result and not the brutal particulars.143 In Assyrian chronicles, though, the number of dead is inflated in order to extol the conquering king and his god. In our case, through an exaggeration in the figure, the author of Esther is underlining the reversal of fortune in the situation of all the Jews and confirming the mastery that they gain over all the enemies. One could think that the book of Esther wants to exalt the Jewish people and their unnamed God.144 Alternatively, providing a precise number might mean that the Jews knew how many the supporters of Haman were. In addition, by giving an exact number, the author shows that the killing was controlled and that a second day is needed to eliminate all the supporters of the old order.145 4.4.2 The Celebrations Commence (9:16–19) The final verses under study (9:16–19) are a long sentence. They form a summary of what happened in the empire, giving a historical basis in order to enlighten the legal aspects of the feast of Purim.146 Because of the legal value of these verses, the dates are repeated several times: thirteenth Adar is mentioned twice (9:17.18), fourteenth Adar on three occasions (9:17.18.19) and the fifteenth Adar only once (9:18). The legality of the action is underlined by the verbal forms. Most verbs are infinitive absolutes and participles thereby giving to the descriptions a continuous present aspect.147 The difference between the practice in the citadel of Susa and the provinces is the main topic in these verses. When feasting, the Jews are not celebrating on the actual dates of the battle, thirteenth and fourteenth of Adar, instead they gather on the fourteenth and the fifteenth. This is so because the reason for the celebration is not the battle or the final victory but the results of such victory. The main outcome of the battles is rejoicing and freedom and therefore the Jews celebrated “not their victory but the absence of cause for blood or victory in the future”.148 After all the events of the Jews’ deliverance are over, Esther together with Mordecai, writes a letter (9:29–32) in which she reinstates Mordecai’s 143   C.A. Moore, Esther, 89. 144  A. Berlin, Esther, 87. 145  J. Grossman, Esther, 192. 146  One of the possibilities for the historical basis of Purim is the celebration of Nicanor in the times of the Maccabees (1 Macc 7:39–50; 2 Macc 15). The thirteenth of Adar would be the date on which Judah Maccabee’s force slew the Seleucid general Nicanor, cutting off his head and right hand for public display in Jerusalem (cf. J.D. Levenson, Esther, 123; R. Herst, “The Purim Connection”, 139–145). 147  R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 234. 148  D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll, 162.

222

CHAPTER 6

previous decree for the celebration of Purim (9:20–28). This letter is addressed to all the Jews resident in the Empire and its theme is summed up in the expression ‫( ִּד ְב ֵרי ָׁשלֹום וֶ ֱא ֶמת‬9:30). This phrase, translated in different ways by various authors,149 refers to the festivities of Purim in which the change in the life of the Jews is commemorated.150 Some authors postulate that this expression picks up Zechariah’s description of the future transformation from days of fasting and mourning into a joyful holiday (Zech 8:19). Thus the story of Purim would fulfil the redemption promised by the prophet151 and celebrate not a military victory but the enduring effects of peace. We agree with this view and believe that ‫ ׁשלום‬in this instance refers to the promised situation created after the decree of self-defence was put into practice. The Jewish victory underscores also the principle of durability of all the Jews. This principle had already been enunciated by Zeresh when she said to her husband: “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him” (6:13). Jewish resilience is made manifest through the violent actions of the Jewish people and is celebrated every year at Purim. Thus the fourteenth of Adar is a day of rest from the enemies, a date on which the future generations should continue to celebrate the deliverance obtained.152 The concept of rest from the enemies appears several times in the Meghillah (3:8; 9:16.17.18.22). In 3:8, Haman had told the king: “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not for the king’s profit to tolerate them (‫”) ֵאין־ׁשֹוֶ ה ְל ַהּנִ ָיחם‬. Tolerating the Jews should be interpreted as an obstacle to attaining rest. However, chapter 9 proves again a reversal of fortunes. Tolerating the Jews gives rest while doing Haman’s will brings distress to the empire. 149  “Peace and security” (HALOT 1509); “Worte des Heils und der Wahrheit” (H. Bardtke, Das Buch Esther, 397); “Paz verdadera” (J. Vílchez, Rut y Ester, 369); “friendly and sincere letters” (C.M. Moore, Esther, 96); “Letters conveying wishes of peace and faithfulness” (J.D. Levenson, Esther, 125); “an ordinance of equity and honesty” (A. Berlin, Esther, 92); “parole di pace e di verità” (A. Minissale, Ester, 221). 150  Gordis holds that this might have been the initial formula of greeting in a letter, as can be attested in other cultures (R. Gordis, “Studies”, 57–58; cf. L.B. Paton, Esther, 301). However, Bush and others point out that ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬does not appear in the correspondence of that period (F.W. Bush, Esther, 486). 151   J.D. Levenson, Esther, 130–131; A. Berlin, Esther, 92–93. 152  G. Gerleman, Esther, 134: “Es fällt auf, daß die Feier des Purim nicht zur Erinnerung an den Sieg selber begangen wird, sondern zur Erinnerung an den Ruhetag nach dem Siege”.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

223

Further, the phrase ‫ונֹוח ֵמא ֵֹיְב ֶיהם‬ ַ (“resting from their enemies”) in 9:16 is problematic.153 It is obviously out of place since relief is the result of fighting and the battle does not finish till 9:17.154 Berlin would delete it from 9:16 because she felt it must have come from 9:17.155 In the book of Esther, the Israelites gain rest from their enemies only by human efforts. The acquiring of peace might point to a divine intervention since it is only God who gives rest from enemies in the Old Testament.156 This is exposed clearly in the book of Joshua whenever the conquest of the Promised Land is described (Josh 1:13.15). At this point of the history of Israel, the working together of God and humans brings about the desired rest. In both Joshua and Esther, rest means primarily relief from one’s enemies. Then rest in Joshua is possession of the land, submission to God’s law and the dispossession of its inhabitants. In Esther, though, rest means remaining in the Diaspora with no Jewish religious obligations. In Joshua the rest is the result of a divine command whilst in Esther rest is achieved as a response to an attack, first written (3:11–12) then acted out (9:1).157 In all these instances, the Jewish identity is settled by the battles fought and by the victories won. The institution of Purim sets another hidden example of God’s presence in the text. As Mordecai institutes the festival of Purim, he writes that the celebration of Purim should be the month in which ‫ּומ ֵ ֖א ֶבל ְלי֣ ֹום ֑טֹוב‬ ֵ ‫גֹון ְל ִׂש ְמ ָ֔חה‬ ֙ ָ‫נֶ ְה ֙ ַּפְך ָל ֶ ֤הם ִמּי‬ (“[it] had been turned for them [the Jews] from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday”, 9:22; cf. 8:17). Hence all the fears and anxiety described previously in the Meghillah are summed up by ‫ ֵא ֶבל‬before the opposite situation is established, days of feasting and drinking. Whereas there is a clear human agent who has brought this change about, it is worth noting that elsewhere in the Scriptures God is the only one responsible for such a change (‫)הפך‬, that is, from feasting into mourning (cf. Amos 8:10) and from mourning into joy (cf. Jer 31:13). The presence of the passive form of ‫ הפך‬in 9:22 might point to Mordecai’s vision of the divine working in human history. The conclusion at which the author arrives is given in 9:19 and is introduced by ‫ל־ּכן‬ ֵ ‫“( ַע‬because of this”). This conjunction is followed by the prescription

153  See footnote 25 in chapter 2. 154   M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology, 285. 155  A. Berlin, Esther, 87. 156  S. Dalley, Esther’s Revenge, 129: “the surprise is that Esther as a mortal, not Yahweh the god of her people, acts to punish the enemies of her people”. Cf. A.-M. Wetter, “On her Account”, 115. 157  Cf. A.C. Leder, “Hearing Esther after Joshua”, 276–279.

224

CHAPTER 6

legalising Purim which was already celebrated.158 The author highlights two important moments in the description of the new festival: a celebratory meal and then sharing with those who are in need. This practice is later instituted by Mordecai and Esther’s letters (9:20–28.29–31) becoming very popular. In this way chapter 9 describes the differences between Persian and Jewish laws and customs. Whereas in Persia the king or a vizier on his behalf commands and the people obey, in Jewish circles decisions are taken through dialectics of proposal, assent and validation. Real authority resides in the community which proposes and then the leaders confirm.159 The leaders are not chosen in the sense of present day democracy, they arise from among the people to meet challenges which in our case are posed by the Persians. Their authority is exercised following the Persian manner by a decree. This way of behaving resembles the establishment of the feast of Hannukah by a letter (cf. 1 Macc 4:59; 2 Macc 1:19–2:7.13–15) confirming that the way of establishing new feasts in biblical times follows a similar pattern of Maccabean-Hasmonean Judaism. According to the Meghillah, the Persians are generous. The king throws parties for his subjects and Esther received portions from Hegai (2:9) and from the king at her coronation (2:18). The Jews too are generous in aiding their kin.160 Moreover, charity towards those who are worse off is a characteristic of the Jewish religion as expressed on those days dedicated to the Lord (Deut 16:11; 26:11). Portions of food were distributed among family members (1 Sam 1:4.5) and those who participated in sacrificial offerings (Lev 7:33; 8:29).161 Rejoicing with a meal is also a practice of holidays in the post exilic period: ‘ “This day is holy to the Lord your God; do not mourn or weep”. For all the people wept when they heard the words of the law. Then he said to them, “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength” ’ (Neh 8:9–10). The descriptions of mutual care 158   W.T. McBride, “Esther Passes”, 223: “A final question of interest, posed earlier but deferred, remains: why are so many enemies of the Jews killed in the Book of Esther? It is possibly due to the author’s excessive, hyperbolic style, although that hardly answers the question. Perhaps the slaughtered tens of thousands is a talionic response devised to match Haman’s ten thousand talents of silver. More likely the author’s desire to legalize a festival not mentioned in the Torah leads to such a memorable slaughter”. 159  Cf. M.V. Fox, Redaction, 123–124. 160  M.-T. Wacker, “Tödliche Gewalt”, 617. 161  This is a customs which is then legislated (9:22) and that passes on to the rabbinical tradition, cf. T. Novick, “Charity and Reciprocity”, 35–38.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

225

in the Bible are linked to issues of economic justice162 and reinforce the idea of a people with a common heritage. Thus the Israelites are brought together and express their collective identity by works of charity. All are included in the celebrations and it is up to the people to ensure that everyone can rejoice. A further Jewish touch to the celebrations of Purim is expressed by the adjective ‫“ ִׂש ְמ ָחה‬rejoicing” attached to their banqueting. In this way, the Jewish celebration is different from the preceding Gentile banquets. Whereas the Persians get drunk (1:10; 5:9), the Jews rejoice (8:16.17; 9:17.18.19.22). In the establishment of the feast there are three stages. First the battles are fought by the Jews on the fourteenth of Adar in the whole empire (cf. 9:12.17). Then, there is a subsequent day of fighting in Susa on the fifteenth of Adar (9:17–19). Finally, the feast of Purim is instituted worldwide through the letter which is then addressed to all the Jews whether they reside in Susa or in the provinces.163 In this threefold development several things should be commented upon. First, a perplexing side of this account is that following the law, the Persians were not allowed to fight on the fifteenth of Adar. Nonetheless it would be too difficult to accept that the Persians would receive an attack without retaliating.164 Second, the insertion of a second day was needed after local custom had been established since “history here arises from custom, not custom from history”.165 Third, the Jews show how they were assimilated to the Persians by using their same ways of communication and of giving orders.166 5 Conclusion At the centre of 9:1–19 stands the process of reversal of fortunes summarised by the verb “to reverse” (9:1 ‫)וְ נַ ֲהפֹוְך‬. A further unifying idea comes from the Jewish refusal to take any booty (9:10.15.16). Yet another feature is the massacres of the enemies of the Jews. They had to be killed and hence the Jewish 162   T.K. Beal, Esther, 115. 163  “The Jews of living in the villages, who dwelt in the cities of the open towns” (‫הּודים‬ ֣ ִ ְ‫ַהּי‬ ‫) ַה ְּפרֹוזִ ים‬. The verb ‫ פרז‬in this case refers to the contraposition between inside and outside of the political control of the imperial authorities residing in Susa (H.M. Niemman, “Das Ende”, 233–243, esp. 242–243). Hence the author speaks about the Jews and the cities which are outside the political jurisdiction of the citadel of Susa. 164  H. Bardtke, Das BuchEsther, 386. 165   L.B. Paton, Esther, 288. 166  G. Snyman, “Narrative Rationality”, 185.

226

CHAPTER 6

people needed an extra day of fighting. Finally, the high point of these verses is the institution of Purim. No matter how violent the Jewish behaviour might seem, the most important trait of the Purim celebration is a double commemoration. The Jews celebrate both the rest acquired as a result of the fighting and the date on which the Jewish fate was changed. Further, if one does not read this chapter through the lens of farce and irony, one will be unable to understand the significance of the account. To begin with one needs to accept that certain licenses are granted in the context of carnival.167 This chapter is the peak of the disorder which characterises carnival and the high point of irony at which emotions are released and lived to the wildest degree.168 The informed reaction to the ugliness of carnival is, in the first instance, fear and only then laughter. In the context of carnival and farce one is allowed everything but spared the consequences. The lack of reaction on the part of the king confirms the view that this account is not real. Both Persians and Jews are condemned as guilty by the high court of irony. Jews are described as any other nation and their behaviour is not different. Unlike their presence in other biblical books, they are not the chosen, separated people. Thus “the subversive, all-encompassing ironies of Esther abolish differences and promote a universal vision of humanity with both the light and dark sides of the human heart”.169 The question about the place of the last two chapters of Esther within the Meghillah might be still open. Chapters 9 and 10 come from a different source. Whereas some differences in vocabulary and in style are noticeable, the differences in content are not so obvious. It is clear that there was a different hand at work in these final chapters but this does not imply that there is not connection between them and the rest of the Meghillah. This connection is the result of the heavy work of the final editor. According to us, there might be theological reasons for detaching 9:1–19 from the rest of the Scroll. If one proves that they were not original (hypothesising a proto-Esther), one could take away part of the problem of violence from the book. However, violence is part of the workings of the Scroll and according to us, this chapter should be kept. Esther 9:1–19 reconfirms the view that Ahasuerus is favourable to the Jewish cause. Esther’s request for a second day of fighting colours the way she is perceived and whereas until that point in the story the readers might find her

167   T.K. Beal, Esther, 113. 168  A. Berlin, Esther, 81. 169  S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies”, 27.

Before the Party Begins: Exegesis of Esther 9:1–19

227

attractive and somehow desirable to be imitated, such an idea evaporates.170 However, the morality of her actions is not the main issue here even though sympathy for the character of the orphaned young Jewess disappears. Despite what others might say, Esther has no active part in planning any military action or violent attack. The first decree of defence is written and signed by Mordecai (8:7) while the second is ordered by the king (9:14). Her active role is in supervising the feast of Purim (9:29–31). In his decree Ahasuerus gave permission to take the spoils. In a subtle way the only true obedient subjects to the king are Esther and Mordecai. The Jews who are the legal heirs of the Saulide Israelites do not take the booty from Amalek’s seed. However, after Haman’s death, Mordecai and Esther quickly spoilt the Amalekites by taking possession of Haman’s property. Hence only the leaders of the Jewish community put the king’s decree into action. Paradoxically peace and tranquillity are only achieved when the enemy and their threat are blotted out. It is only then that real enjoyment begins. So the feast of Purim is to be understood as a fulfilment and celebration of what had happened before, the complete turn-about of the Jewish fate, the triumph and revenge over their enemies and relief from oppression. The question which this chapter answers and which was posed from the beginning of the Meghillah is “who is in control of events?”. Right from chapter 1 there is a conflict which is created because the one who was in charge of the empire, king Ahasuerus, could not achieve command over his household. Through the story the struggle of power has brought people cunningly to manoeuvre the king for their own benefit. Chapter 9 summarises this intention by the verb “getting mastery”. Whereas the Persians think they will be in control of the events, their illusion is overthrown by the Jewish people. By using official means, the Jews take control of history and show how collaboration with the established power will save their lives. 170  G. Snyman, “Narrative Rationality”, 186.

General Conclusions For pressing milk produces curds, pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife. Proverbs 30:33

∵ “Lest we forget!” Every November Britain is flooded with poppies and this sentence can be read in all public places. Society is encouraged to remember the sacrifices made by soldiers in the past, beginning with both World Wars and continuing with all those who have fallen in the cause of justice ever since. The events of the past are revisited by means of this shared memory and thus the former victories are made present. The few remaining old veterans are paraded and society is told never to forget their hardships, endured for the common good of the nation. Remembrance is the most important feature in the book of Esther. Hence at the end of the book a yearly commemoratory service is decreed. On this occasion one does not have to call to mind the sacrifices of the past, the craftiness of its heroes or battles fought. One remembers the day in which the fate of the Jews was changed. However, one cannot deny that violence is embedded prominently within the narrative of Esther. We do not claim it is the most important theme, nonetheless it is a theme that cannot be disregarded. At the same time the reader has to be careful not to approach this ancient text with a twenty-first century mentality. From a pacifist perspective the Meghillah might seem to be a glorification of violence and revenge. However, we have tried to show how this is not the case. The Meghillah does not justify violence but shows its purpose.1 In the following pages we will collect the

1  J.J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas”, 21: “The Bible has contributed to violence in the world precisely because it has been taken to confer a degree of certitude that transcends human discussion and argumentation. Perhaps the most constructive thing a biblical critic can do toward lessening the contribution of the Bible to violence in the world, is to show that that certitude is an illusion”. Cf. E.A. Seibert, The Violence of Scripture, 78–80.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004337022_009

General Conclusions

229

main findings of our research in order to meet the challenge posed by this biblical text.2 1

Literary Dimension of Violence

The author is able to play with feelings and actions and how they interplay with violence. We have shown that violence is preceded by certain feelings and that these emotions lead people to violent acts. Violence is present all through the Meghillah and is subtler than the gory descriptions of other contemporary non-biblical literature.3 All aggression is regulated by law and is not an expression of mindless desires. The author uses a rich vocabulary which internally recalls previous stories and sometimes pre-empts subsequent ones. As we have shown, the violence in Esth 2:21–23, 7:1–10 and 9:1–19 has a cumulative effect. These pericopes are, as it were, building blocks that prepare the reader for the final result. Different doublets have been highlighted by scholars in the Meghillah. For example Esther has a double name (2:7), Ahasuerus asks the queen twice the same question (5:3; 7:2) and there are two decrees of Purim (9:26.29). We have underscored other examples, such as the interrelation between the plot of revelation and the plot of resolution or the correlation between retributive and punitive justice. A further instance is the double use of the gallows, namely as a way of executing people, such as Teresh, Bigthan and Haman, or a way of dishonouring others, i.e. Haman’s ten children. Yet another instance of doublets is Esther’s twofold petition: she asks for two banquets, she requests her life to be spared and her people’s as well and finally she implores from the king a second day of fighting alongside the hanging of Haman’s ten children. Hence violent acts always come in pairs in the narrative. Another literary feature that has been noted is the great amount of writing in the Meghillah. According to us most of it has to do with violence or its consequences.4 For example, Vashti’s deposition is recorded (1:19) and so is the law mandating that each man be the head of their household (1:22). Bigthan and 2  J. Magonet, “The Liberal and the Lady”, 176: “If we are content to treat the Megillah as a funny book to be read once a year, then perhaps we are entitled to dismiss it. But if we are to treat it with the seriousness, imagination and care with which every book of the Bible should be approached, then it has much to teach and, more important, many profound and farreaching questions to ask of us”. 3  A. Berlin, Esther, 82. 4  R. Treloar, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’, 139.

230

General Conclusions

Teresh’s affair is registered (2:23 cf. 6:1) as is the decree of annihilation of the Jews (3:13) and its counterpart written by Mordecai (8:9–10). Finally, the letters of Purim preserve the events of Susa and the provinces (9:20). This implies that the greatest consequence of these records of violence is the insertion of the Jews into the history of the empire. By the end of the Meghillah, Mordecai and the Jews are agents of history which is influenced by their wishes. Violence makes heroes of those who were once punished by imperial justice. Hence, in keeping with the ironic character of our book, alongside the Jews, Vashti, Teresh and Bigthan take their place of honour. 2

Characters and Violence

The Meghillah does not provide a moral judgement of any of the characters other than Haman, called “an evil man, the adversary and the enemy” (cf. 7:6). On the contrary, all of the characters are described in the same light, that is, all of them are subjects and/or objects of violence, expressed either as an action or as an intention. For example the king was the object of Bigthan and Teresh’s coup d’état. In a second instance he is the subject of violent actions when he decrees the death of Haman, the revenge on his children and the actions of the Jews. By her actions, Vashti becomes both the object and subject of violent acts by refusing the king’s orders and by being the recipient of his rage. Mordecai is the principal object of Haman’s edict and the promoter of the decree of Jewish revenge. Esther is not only the victim of threats of violence and the mastermind behind some of the decisions taken by the king, but she takes the risk of death upon herself voluntarily when she goes to see the king unannounced (4:16). Haman has the intention of killing Mordecai and all the Jews but ends up being hanged upon the very gibbet he had built for his enemy. Finally the Jews who are the target of the most violent plan in the Meghillah become the dispensers of a bloodbath. In a similar way all the characters of our story pass through different stages of being either active or passive. Ahasuerus commands the parties and Vashti’s dethronement, while being also the object of the two eunuchs’ conspiracy and finally deciding what is to happen with different people in his kingdom. Vashti is actively hosting a party and disobeying the king’s orders before being the passive receiver of obliteration. Mordecai elevates his cousin and refuses to bow to Haman. This refusal makes him the target of the vizier’s plan before actively becoming the leader of the Jews. Esther is raised by her cousin and brought to the beauty contest. At chapter 4 she takes a life-changing decision

General Conclusions

231

and assumes an active stance in the salvation of her people.5 Haman passively receives the honour of vizier but gets angry and actively seeks the destruction of Mordecai and his people. At the end of his life he passively receives the death-sentence from the king. Finally the Jews’ actions relate to orders given to them: they gather at Esther’s behest, they become the object of Haman’s decree and then are the enacters of Mordecai’s orders. In all these descriptions, the only people who are killed are those who remain in a passive state, namely, Vashti and Haman. All the other characters, through their active engagement with life, preserve it. Much has been written about the different characters. Ahasuerus, in our view, is usually misrepresented and highly caricatured.6 According to us, the author has a high esteem for the monarch and the institution he represents. The author spares the Jewish protagonists to the point that he does not record one single casualty in the Jewish camp. The only non-Jew whose life is spared is king Ahasuerus. Therefore, we conclude that he is seen in a favourable light by the author. His defence of the Jews (8:7) makes him not a menace to their prosperity but on the contrary he should be considered an ally and someone to work with. If nothing else, the king safeguarded the life of the Jews. Ahasuerus could therefore be described as a friend of the Jews and a supporter of their cause. Technically the king is the only one who orders violence even though some other people might incite it. He has the destiny of his subjects in his hands as the two acts of begging for mercy show. Haman falls at the feet of Esther to implore her for mercy and meets his death whereas the queen pleads for her life, her people’s life and the remittal of Haman’s decree and obtains life. Haman therefore pleaded with the wrong authority and got the wrong verdict. As for Esther, she has been unjustly treated by those who describe her as bloodthirsty and a character falling short of moral standards.7 Her only involvement with violent behaviour consists in inciting the king to act. Her action is similar to Harbonah who points out the gallows present in Haman’s garden. No one would say that he is bloodthirsty or accuse him of low morals. Further, in other cases of women liberators, Jael and Judith use violence and actively kill 5  C. Vialle, Une analyse comparée d’Esther, 92. 6  K.M. Craig, Reading Esther, 144: “Ahasuerus’s dim wits and short memory have a dramatic effect on the plot. Indeed, much of the story proceeds because Ahasuerus functions as a literary fool”. 7  L.B. Paton, Esther, 96: “There is no noble character in the book [. . . .] Morally, Est. falls far below the general level of the OT, and even of the Apocrypha”.

232

General Conclusions

the enemy in order to make the Jews independent. As opposed to her counterparts, Esther does not perform any violent act. She is the intellectual author of violence but never its material executor. Her actions show that one can be as free as the contemporaries of Jael and Judith while being within the bounds of oppressors or foreign powers. The last words of the book are the record of Mordecai’s actions and of his great deeds (10:2). All through the Meghillah he has been compared with two of the great leaders of the history of Israel: Moses8 and Saul.9 These two chiefs of the history of Israel are somehow two “fallen stars” because Moses did not enter the Promised Land while Saul was deposed. Both met their fate because of disobedience to the divine command. Mordecai redeems these two characters by his obedience to the laws of the land and his collaboration with the established powers. This is yet another reversal described by the Meghillah. 3

The Violent Narrative of Esther

We can affirm that knowledge is power and, in Esther, information leads to violence. The best kept secret is Mordecai and Esther’s ethnicity which, in its turn, becomes a deadly weapon. When Mordecai reveals it (3:4) he is persecuted by Haman, whereas when Esther makes known her origins, Haman is condemned to death. All along the story everyone is tricked including the reader. He or she has the impression of knowing everything but at the last stage the author pulls out the trump card of Ahasuerus’s support of the Jews.10 Therefore the most powerful person in this story is the narrator. The narrator makes the story move along by his use of anger. When describing rage, the book of Esther becomes the most human of all the writings of the Bible. It proclaims that this passion, though self-destructive, can be controlled and diverted towards another object. Further anger is characteristic of the non-Jews and arises because of offences to honour. Yet another reason for an outburst of rage is injustice, which becomes another theme of the Scroll. In the Meghillah, violence is a prominent way of dealing with others. Violence however is carried out with different weapons, which are not always material instruments.11 Other than the mention of a sword (9:5) and the 8  Chapter 6 §4.1.3. 9  Chapter 1 §3.4 (cf. also chapter 2 §1.1.2). 10  See Chapter 3 §6.3. 11  Cf. N. Calduch-Benages, “War, Violence and Revenge in the Book of Esther”, 131–136.

General Conclusions

233

impressive gallows built by Haman (5:14), there is no other material weapon. The Meghillah describes other ways of inciting and attaining violence. The banquet is the favourite Sitz im Leben where sentencing and killing happens. In this setting, excessive alcohol consumption is also highlighted as the reason for certain actions such as Vashti’s deposition (1:10) or Haman’s decision to kill Mordecai after attending Esther’s first banquet (5:9). The Meghillah’s most important weapon is speech because when it is used correctly it has the power to acquit or condemn. In the Meghillah, not only words and courtly speech kill but also silence leads others into death (cf. see the use of the verb ‫)חרׁש‬. Esther uses her beauty to entice the king and Haman into a trap.12 Moreover the most paralysing weapon is fear which leads Haman to fall over Esther (7:8) and the Persians to both promote the Jews and not retaliate against them (8:17; 9:3). Fear is also a positive feeling in the hands of the Jews. Because of fear, Esther speaks to her cousin and is convinced to intercede for the Jews (4:4). Another weapon that wins victory is patience. The suspense in the story which, as we have shown, has to do mainly with acts of violence, highlights that the long gaps work for the good of the Jews. The timing of events is also quite telling. The lots are cast as the Jews are gathering to celebrate Passover. Haman’s decree threatens to undo the miracles of Exodus. The anguished fear that things will not work out is played on by the author whereas the final result encourages trust in God. Violence is always premeditated while its consequences, peace and truth, are timeless and immediate. The ultimate weapon is the story itself. When the Jews are under oppression, their only defence is laughter and the ridicule of the established power.13 Through fun and satire the Jewish people are encouraged to trust God and be faithful to the community. When other realities of the presence of God are no longer present, that is, the Davidic king, the Promised Land and the Temple, God is living among a people that are faithful to each other. Salvation is ultimately attained by those who stand together to defend themselves. 4

God’s Hidden Face

Unlike other biblical stories in which the action of God is more or less recognizable, God seems to have hidden his face in the book of Esther. The combination of human and divine causality is not apparently present even though 12   J.A. Loader, “The Dark Side of Beauty”, 339. 13  Cf. F.B. Huey, “Irony as a Key”, 38–39.

234

General Conclusions

there are traces of divine presence scattered through the story.14 One of the signs of divine protection for the Jews of Esther’s time is prosperity, which is a divine prerogative even in the Diaspora. God’s presence can be singled out in the different reversals in the story. God had chosen the people of Israel (Deut 7:6) to make it a blessing for all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:3). The survival of the people is a sign that God is interested in fulfilling his promise for the good of humanity. In this context the peripateian principle becomes a key to understanding the story. For example enemies, such as Ahasuerus, become friends and those thought to be friendly, such as Mordecai’s colleagues at the gate, become his enemies. The main reversal, though, is celebrated at Purim and is directly linked with violence. Purim is described as that day on which things had changed “from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday” (9:22). This sort of change is a divine prerogative elsewhere in the Bible (Jer 31:13; Amos 8:10). Hence Purim celebrates God’s intervention in human affairs, even though this transformation comes about through the means of human agents and violence. World history seems to be guided by a purpose which is beyond our grasp.15 Mordecai thus affirms: “and who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this” (4:14). According to us, God is hidden in the Meghillah in order to highlight that the divine can act even in adverse situations such as the Diaspora. Those who read or hear the book of Esther are therefore encouraged to look for the divine presence in their lives. The certainty of this hidden presence helps them to have a believing attitude and so understand the events happening around them. Finally, God seems to have distanced himself from the institutions to begin living in history and among the people. His justice is executed through human means for the good of all. Further, as we have pointed out, in certain texts, the enemies of the Jewish people are the foes of God. In this way, the defeat of the Persians is expected because no one can fight against God and be victorious. The final rest obtained through battle also supports our conclusion, since the only way of attaining rest in the biblical corpus is through divine intervention and support.

14  Amit admits that the book of Esther is an exception to the rule because God does not send a messager, nor does he appear in a dream (Y. Amit, “The Dual Causality Principle”, 397). In our view, dual causality can be applied to the Meghillah, even though it is not as obvious as in other cases. 15   A.B. Cohen, “ ‘Hu Ha-goral’ ”, 94.

General Conclusions

5

235

The Relationship between the Jews and the World around Them

The acts of violence studied are not the description of senseless aggression but rather highlight the faithfulness of the Jews. Mordecai is set in contrast with Bigthan and Teresh whereas Esther is the counterpart of Haman. In these descriptions the author prompts the reader to sympathise with the feelings of the Jews and to distance him or herself from those who hated them. In other words, the intended effect of these descriptions is to feel at one with those who are in sorrow but also to be detached from those in anger. The Meghillah, therefore, poses as a Jewish book from which to learn several lessons.16 The main thesis of the book is the question about who is in control of the empire and the lives of its subjects. Through the use of violence the answer is given and the right response to this query is “the Jews” (cf. 9:1). Power, though, is gained by a decree and only after acts of violence. Another principal question posed by Esther is who looks after others. Mordecai looked after his cousin when she was at her weakest point. In her turn, she becomes the defender of the helpless and makes it possible for the Jewish nation to survive. To the cry that there is no justice in this world the Scroll offers a double answer. First we find retributive justice as expressed by the concept of vengeance, second punitive justice, executed by the king and the Persian court. The latter is dispensed not necessarily at a tribunal but is wherever the king is present as the supreme legislator.17 According to some, the monarch’s decisions are arbitrary but as we have shown they follow a precise procedure described through legal technical language. In our book both biblical and secular legal systems come together with the latter working for the establishment of the former. The use of hanging, which was proper only to the pagan law, establishes the right balance in Persia. One of the examples of collaboration is Haman’s execution, in which the offender receives equal punishment to the evil inflicted or planned. Both legal structures are inscribed in the laws of the land and hence vengeance is legally approved when the king sanctioned Mordecai’s decree which mirrors Haman’s. Once put into practice, it has a 16  R. Bauckham, The Bible in Politics, 130: “Esther’s relevance for Christians ought to derive, in the first place, from the fact that, while becoming less of a Christian book than almost any other book of the Old Testament, Esther has remained a Jewish book, whose annual reading at Purim, throughout the centuries of persecution, needed no interpretation to make it relevant to contemporary experience. In the light of this history, Christians would do well to read Esther precisely as a Jewish book whose presence in the Christian Bible claims Christian attention”. 17  Chapter 5 §5.

236

General Conclusions

double effect: on the one hand it works for the good of the Jews and, on the other, it dishonours their enemies. We could say that the Meghillah becomes a handbook of how to manipulate power for one’s own purposes. However, the Scroll is not a subversive book trying to avoid or overthrow established power. Violence might be part of the system but the structures are not totally evil. Instead they can be manoeuvred for the good of the people. At certain moments the king looks like a puppet who follows all sorts of advice. It takes an experienced master puppeteer to make the marionette act in a certain way. This could be the reason why there is a radical change in Ahasuerus’s attitude once Haman is gone and the role of main adviser is taken by Esther. Eventually all the actions and decisions taken in the Meghillah work for the good of the Jews. Therefore the empire is seen through a positive lens. From the beginning though, the reader is led into a hermeneutic of suspicion when dealing with the Persians because of the lack of security within the palatial structure. There might be enemies crouched in hiding, such as Bigthan and Teresh, even though one might also find a collaborator, like Harbonah. The final description of the book of Esther is the achievement of universal rest, peace and prosperity after violent acts. This is the hope, perhaps the nostalgic desire, given by this text to those in the Diaspora or those who are afflicted by the different Hamans of history. They can read in this book that this goal is achievable. Like other aspects of the Meghillah this end is the foreshadowed result of violence. There are two moments in the text when the king is unsettled (1:12; 7:7) and acquires his calm anew after the public display of punitive justice (2:1; 7:10). Likewise, once retributive justice has been exercised, the expected result is peace and tranquillity. Our story therefore has a poignant aim: the salvation and preservation of the Jewish nation. Zeresh enunciates it when talking to her husband: “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him” (6:13). Further, this principle is inscribed into the laws of the Medes and the Persians because Mordecai’s decree, sanctioned by the king, allows the Jews to stand for the preservation of their lives (8:11). Thus it would seem that this principle is commonly acknowledged. The point of this story therefore is the way in which this purpose is brought about. Contemporary biblical literature, such as the books of Maccabees, advocated active war against the enemies. Alternatively, the Meghillah provides a different model, namely, collaboration with and submission to the established authority. Survival is a strategy which combines assimilation with the Persians and identification with the Jews.

General Conclusions

237

All these facets of the story of Esther are remembered every year in the feast of Purim which celebrates the total victory of Mordecai over Haman, and of Israel over Amalek. The means of this victory are not as important as the rest attained through human craftiness and force. Esther provides an example of how an individual hatred can be turned into universal acceptance. The memory of these events encourages the Jewish people to stick together inspiring countless generations of their successors up to our days and beyond. By sparing the chosen race and the constituted pagan powers, the author states that the latter can always be used for the good of God’s chosen people.

Bibliography Abadie, P., La reine masquée. Lecture du livre d’Esther, Lyon: Profac, 2011. Achenbach, R., “Vertilgen—Töten—Vernichten (Ester 3,13). Die Genozid-Thematik im Esterbuch”, ZABR 15 (2009) 282–315. Ackerman, S., Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen. Women in Judges and Biblical Israel, ABRL, New York: Doubleday, 1998. Alieni, M., “Metodologia per la costruzione di un lessico tematico”, in P. Radici colace – M. Caccamo Caltabiano, eds., Atti del I seminario di studi sui lessici tecnici greci e latini (Messina, 8–10 marzo 1990), Messina: Academia Peloritana dei Pericolanti, 1991, 31–45. Alighieri, D., The Divine Comedy. Purgatory, translation by M.B. Anderson, OUP: London, 1929. Alonso Schökel, L., “La Rédemption, œuvre de solidarité”, NReTh 93 (1971) 451–457. Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York: Basic Books, 1991. Álvarez Valdés, A., “Ester y Judit: Entre la identidad Judía y el rechazo”, RevBib 65 (2003) 63–80. Amit, Y., “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature”, VT 37 (1987) 385–400. Amit, Y., “The Saul Polemic in the Persian Period”, in O. Lipschits – M. Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, 647–661. Amouretti, M.-C. – Brun, J.-P., ed., La production du vin et del’huile en Méditerranée, BCH.S 26, Athènes: École Française d’Athènes, 1993. Anaya Luengo, R., “La teología del libro de Ester”, ResB 56 (2007) 41–51. Anderson, C.B., “Ruth and Esther as Models for the Formation of God’s People: Engaging Liberationist Critiques”, in J.L. Berquist – A. Hunt, eds., Focusing Biblical Studies. The Crucial Nature of the Persian and Hellenistic Period. Essays in Honor of Douglas A. Knight, LHB/OTSt 544, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2012, 137–157. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics with an English Translation by H. Rackham, LCL 19, Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press – William Heinemann, 1982. Asurmendi, J., “La construction d’Haman dans le livre d’Esther”, in A. Hilhorst – É. Puech – E. Tigchelaar, eds., Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, JSJ.S 122, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2007, 421–431. Bach, A., Women, Seduction, and Betrayal in Biblical Narrative, Cambridge: CUP, 1997. Bal, M., “Lots of Writing”, in A. Brenner, ed., Ruth and Esther, A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, 212–238.

240

Bibliography

Baldwin, J.G., Esther, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Oxford: InterVarsity, 1984. Baloian, B.E., Anger in the Old Testament, AmUSt.TR. 99, New York: Peter Lang, 1992. Barbaglio, G., Dio violento? Letture delle Scritture ebraiche e cristiane, Commenti e studi biblici, nuova serie, Assisi: Cittadella, 1991. Bardtke, H., Das Buch Esther, KAT 17, Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1963. Bar-Efrat, S., Narrative Art in the Bible, JSOT.S 70, Sheffield: Almond, 1989. Barker, D.W., “Further Examples of the waw explicativum”, VT 30 (1980) 129–136. Barriocanal Gómez, J.L., La imagen de un Dios violento, Burgos: Monte Carmelo, 2010. Barthélemy, D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther, 50/1, Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires Fribourg, 1982. Barucq, A., Judith. Esther, La Sainte Bible, Paris: de Cerf, 21959. Barucq, A., “Esther et la cour de Suse”, BTS 39 (1961) 2–5. Bauckham, R., The Bible in Politics. How to Read the Bible Politically, London: SPCK, 1989. Beal, T.K., “Tracing Esther’s Beginnings”, in A. Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, Susana, The Feminist Companion to the Bible 7, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996, 87–110. Beal, T.K., The Book of Hiding. Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation, and Esther, London: Routledge, 1997. Beal, T.K., Esther, Berit Olam 8, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999. Beauchamp, P. – Vasse, D., La violence dans la Bible, CahEv 76, Paris: Cerf, 1991. Bechtel, C.M., Esther, Interpretation, Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002. Bekkenkamp, J. – Sherwood, Y., Sanctified Aggressions. Legacies of Biblical and PostBiblical Vocabularies of Violence, JSOT.S 400, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003. Ben-Dov, J. “A Presumed Citation of Esther 3:7 in 4QD”, DSD 6 (1999) 282–284. Berg, S.B., The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, Structure, SBL.DS 44, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979. Berg, S.B., “After the Exile: God and History in the Books of Chronicles and Esther”, in J.L. Crenshaw – S. Sandmel, eds., The Divine Helmsman. Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, New York: Ktav, 1980, 107–127. Berger, Y., “Esther and the Benjaminite Royalty: A Study in Inner-Biblical Allusion”, JBL 129 (2010) 625–644. Bergey, R., “Late Linguistic Features in Esther”, JQR 75 (1984) 66–78. Bergey, R., “Post-exilic Hebrew Linguistic Developments in Esther: A Diachronic Approach”, JETS 31 (1988) 161–168. Berlin, A., Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Bible and Literature Series 9, Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Berlin, A., Esther, The JPS Bible Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2001. Berlin, A., “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling”, JBL 120 (2001) 3–14.

Bibliography

241

Berlin, A., “The Book of Esther: Writing a Commentary for a Jewish Audience”, in S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003, 9–16. Berman, J., “ ‘Hadassah Bat Abihail’: The Evolution from Object to Subject in the Character of Esther”, JBL 120 (2001) 647–669. Bickerman, E.J., Four Strange Books of the Bible. Jonah/Daniel/Koheleth/Esther, New York: Schocken Books, 1967. Bille, F., “La peine de mort et l’Ancien Testament”, in F. Bille – A. Dettwiler – M. Rose, eds., “Maudit quiconque est pendu au bois”: La crucifixion dans la loi et dans la foi, PIRBS 2, Lausanne: 2002, 95–134. Block, D.I., Judges, Ruth, NAC 6, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999. Blumenthal, D., “Where God is not: the Book of Esther and the Song of Songs”, Jdm 44 (1995) 80–92. Bock, D.I., “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature. A Study in Judges 19”, WThJ 52 (1990), 325–341. Boehm, O., “The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical Polemics on the Question of ‘Disobeying’ a Manifestly Illegal Order”, VT 52 (2002), 1–12. Boustan, R.S. – Jassen, A.P. – Roetzel C.J., eds., Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2010. Bovati, P., Ristabilire la giustizia. Procedure, vocabolario, orientamenti, AnBib 110, Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1997. Brenner, A., “Who’s Afraid of Feminist Criticism? Who’s Afraid of Biblical Humour? The Case of the Obtuse Foreign Ruler in the Hebrew Bible”, JSOT 63 (1994) 38–55. Brenner, A., “Looking at Esther through the Looking Glass”, in Id., ed., A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, Susana, The Feminist Companion to the Bible 7, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996, 71–86. Brenner, A., ed., A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, Susana, The Feminist Companion to the Bible 7, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Brenner, A., ed., Ruth and Esther, A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Brenner, A. – van Henlen, J.W., “Our Menu and What is not on it: Editors’ Introduction”, SBL.SS 86 (1999) ix–xvi. Briant, P., Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre. Vol I–II, Achaemenid History 10, Paris: Fayard, 1996. Brockelmann, C., Hebräische Syntax, Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1956. Bronner, L.L., “Reclaiming Esther: from Sex Object to Sage”, JBQ 26 (1998) 3–11. Bronner, L.L., “Esther Revisited: An Aggadic Approach”, in A. Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, Susana, The Feminist Companion to the Bible 7, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996, 176–197. Broshi, M., “Wine in Ancient Palestine—Introductory Notes”, IMJ 3 (1984) 21–40.

242

Bibliography

Brown, J.P., “The Mediterranean Vocabulary of the Vine”, VT 19 (1969) 146–170. Bruggemann, W., Theology of the Old Testament, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Bush, F.W., Ruth, Esther, WBC 9, Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1996. Bush, F.W., “The Book of Esther: Opus non gratum in the Christian Canon”, BBR 8 (1998) 39–54. Butler, T.C., Judges, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999. Butting, K., “Esther: A New Interpretation of the Joseph Story in the Fight against antiSemitism and Sexism”, in A. Brenner, ed., Ruth and Esther, A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, 239–248. Calduch-Benages, N., “ ‘Cut her away from your Flesh’. Divorce in Ben Sira”, in G.G. Xeravits – J. Zsengeller, eds., Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006, JSJ.S 127, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2008, 121–145. Calduch-Benages, N., “War, Violence and Revenge in the Book of Esther”, in J. Liesen – P.C. Beentjes, eds., Visions of Peace and Tales of War, DCLY 2010, Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 2010, 121–145. Calduch-Benages, N., “Le pagine ‘oscure’ della Bibbia”, in C. Aparicio Valls – S. Pié-Ninot, eds., Commento alla Verbum Domini. In memoria di P. Donath Hercsik, S.I., Theologia 4, Roma: G & B Press, 2012, 85–94. Camp, C.V., “The Wise Women in 2 Samuel: a Role Model for Women in Early Israel?”, CBQ 43 (1981) 14–29. Canary, D.J. – Spitzberg, B.H. – Semic, B.A., “The Experience and Expression of Anger in Interpersonal Settings”, in P.A. Andersen – L.K. Guerrero, eds., Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Research, Theory, Applications and Contexts, San Diego: Academic Press, 1998, 189–213. Candido, D., I testi del libro di Ester. Il caso dell’Introitus TM 1,1–22—LXX A1–17; 1,1–22— Ta A1–18; 1,1–21, AnBib 160, Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2005. Candido, D., “Alcune significative varianti della Vetus Latina di Ester”, in D. Candido – C. Raspa, eds., Quasi Vitis (Sir 24,23). Miscellanea in memoria di Antonino Minissale, Quaderni di Synaxis numero speciale 2, Catania: Studio San Paolo, 2012, 23–43. Candido, D., “Esther’s Family: Ethnicity, Politics and Religion”, in A. Passaro, ed., Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, DCLY 2012/2013, Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 2013, 253–271. Carruthers, J., Esther Through the Centuries, Series Information Blackwell Bible Commentaries, Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Carruthers, J., “Esther and Hitler: A Second Triumphant Purim”, in M. Lieb – E. Mason – J. Roberts, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible, Oxford: OUP, 2011, 515–528. Carruthers, J. – Leneman, H., “Esther (Book and Person). VII. Music”, EBR VIII, 48–50.

Bibliography

243

Causse, J.-D., “La violence archaique et le paradoxe du sacrifice aux dieux obscur”, in J.-D. Causse – E. Cuvillier – A. Wénin, Divine violence. Approche exégétique et anthropogique, Paris: Cerf, 2011, 67–98. Causse, J.-D. – Cuvillier, E. – Wénin, A., Divine violence. Approche exégétique et anthropogique, Paris: Cerf, 2011. Cavalier, C., “La quatrième face de l’histoire d’Esther (La Vieille Latine)”, in W. Kraus – O. Munnich, eds., La Septante en Allemagne et en France. Septuaginta Deutsch und Bible d’Alexandrie, OBO 238, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2009, 90–99. Cavalier, C., ed., Esther, BiAl 12, Paris: Cerf, 2012. Chapman, D.W., Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, WUNT 244, Tübinger: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Clines, D.J.A., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCB, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. Clines, D.J.A., The Esther Scroll. The Story of the Story, JSOT.S 30, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Clines, D.J.A., “In Quest of the Historical Mordecai”, VT 41 (1991) 129–136. Clines, D.J.A., “Reading Esther from Left to Right. Contemporary Strategies for Reading a Biblical Text”, in D.J.A. Clines – S.E. Fowl – S.E. Porter, eds., The Bible in Three Dimensions. Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, JSOT.S 87, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990, 31–52. Cohen, A.D., “ ‘Hu Ha-goral’: The Religious Significance of Esther”, Jdm 23 (1974) 87–94. Collins, J.J., “The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence”, JBL 122 (2003) 3–21. Condamin, A., “La disgrace d’Aman (Esth. VII, 8)”, RB 7 (1898) 258–261. Conrad, J., “‫”נכה‬, ThWAT, V, 445–454. Conroe, C., “Hebrew Epic: Historical Notes and Critical Reflections”, Bib. 61 (1980) 1–30. Cook, H.J., “The A Text of the Greek Versions of the Book of Esther”, ZAW 81 (1969) 369–376. Cook, J.G., Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, WUNT 327, Tübinger: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Craig, K.M., Reading Esther: A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Crenshaw, J.L., “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon ‘Historical’ Literature”, JBL 88 (1969) 129–142. Ctesias de Cnide, La Perse. L’inde. Autres fragments (Texte établi, traduit et commenté par D. Lenfant), Paris: Les belles lettres, 2004. Dalley, S., Esther’s Revenge at Susa. From Sennacherib to Ahasuerus, Oxford: OUP, 2007. Daube, D., “The Last Chapter of Esther”, JQR 37 (1947) 139–147. Davies, P.R., “Haman the Victim”, in Id., ed., First Person. Essays in Biblical Autobiography, London – New York: Continuum, 2002, 137–154.

244

Bibliography

Day, L.M., Three Faces of a Queen. Characterization in the Books of Esther, JSOT.S 186, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Day, L.M., Esther, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. Degott, P., “De Racine à Haendel: les tribulations d’Esther”, BSEAA 52 (2001) 35–50. Dempster, S., “Mythology and History in the Song of Deborah”, WThJ 41 (1978) 33–53. Derby, J., “The Funniest Word in the Bible. Purim Torah”, JBQ 22 (1994) 115–119. de Troyer, K., “Once more, the so-called Esther Fragments of Cave 4”, RdQ 75 (2000) 401–422. de Troyer, K., The End of the Alpha-Text of Esther: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1–17, LXX 8:1–17, and AT 7:14–41, SBL.SCS 48, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000. de Troyer, K., “Esther in Text- and Literary-Critical Paradise”, in S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003, 31–49. de Troyer, K. – Wacker, M.-T., “Esther. Das Buch Ester (LXX und A-Text)”, in M. Karrer – W. Kraus, eds, Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Band I, Stuttgart: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft, 2011. Dickson, C.R. – Botha, P.J., “The Role and Portrayal of the King in Esther”, OTE 13 (2000) 156–173. Di Luccio, P., “Il cambio delle sorti alla fine del processo di Gesù”, CivCatt 3834 (2010) 544–556. Di Luccio, P., “La Megillá de Ester y el Magníficat de María de Nazaret”, EE 86 (2011) 39–55. Doglio, F., “Catalogo di titoli d’opere drammatiche ispirate alla bibbia”, in Id., ed., Il teatro e la bibbia, Il Grande Codice 3, Roma: Garamond, 1995, 217–260. Dommershausen, W., Die Estherrolle: Stil und Ziel einer alttestamentlichen Schrift, SBM 6, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968. Dorothy, C.V., The Books of Esther. Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity, JSOT.S 187, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Driver, G.R., “On ḥemah ‘hot anger, fury’ and also ‘fiery wine’ ”, TZ 14 (1958) 133–135. Driver, G.R., “Problems in Judges new Discussed”, ALUOS 4 (1962–63) 6–25. Duchesne-Guillemin, J., “Les noms des eunuques d’Assuérus”, Muséon 66 (1953) 105–108. Duguid, I., “But did They Live Happily Ever After? The Eschatology of the Book of Esther”, WThJ 68 (2006) 85–98. Dupu, J., “Esther: Bible et poésie dramatique”, FrRev 64 (1991) 607–620. Dupu, J., “Having Men for Dinner: Deadly Banquets and Biblical Women”, BTB 35 (2005) 117–124. Dupu, J., Having Men for Dinner. Biblical Women’s Deadly Banquet, Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2006.

Bibliography

245

Ego, B., “Mordecai’s Refusal of Proskynesis before Haman according to the Septuagint Traditio-Historical and Literal Aspects”, in G.G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér, eds., Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books. Selected Studies, DCLS 5, Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 2010, 16–29. Estelle, B.D., “Esther’s Strategies of Becoming an ‫”עבד מׂשכיל‬, HebStud 53 (2012) 61–88. Evans, A., “‘And Mordekhai’s Order Esther Obeyed’. Comparison of Structural Limitation of the Narrative Flow in MT and LXX Esther”, JSem 20 (2011) 233–249. Evans, C.A., “Hanging and Crucifixion in Second Temple Israel. Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in the Light of Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in J. Frey – C. Claussen – N. Kessler, eds., Qumran und die Archäologie, WUNT 278, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 481–501. Exum, J.C. – Nutu, E., eds., Between the Text and the Canvas. The Bible and Art in Dialogue, The Bible in the Modern World, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. Exum, J.C., “ ‘Mother in Israel’: A Familiar Story Reconsidered”, in L.M. Russell, ed., Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, Oxford: Blackwell, 1985, 73–85. Exum, J.C., ed., Plotted, Shot and Painted. Cultural Representations of Biblical Women, JSOT.S 215, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Filippi, A., ed., La violenza, PSV 37, Bologna: EDB, 1998. Fine, R., “Los rostros de Ester. Tres versiones dramáticas auriseculares del libro de Ester: La hermosa Ester de Lope de Vega, La reina Ester de Godínez y La gran sultana de Cervantes”, Hispania Judaica 7 (2010) 233–259. Firth, D.G., “The Book of Esther: A Neglected Paradigm for Dealing with the State”, OTE 10 (1997) 18–26. Firth, D.G., “When Samuel Met Esther: Narrative Focalisation, Intertextuality, and Theology”, STR 1 (2011) 15–28. Fisch, H., Poetry with a Purpose. Biblical Poetics and Interpretation, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990. Fischer, I., Gotteslehrerinnen. Weise Frauen und Frau Weisheit im Alten Testament, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006. Fisher, Z., “Sacrificing Isaac: A New Interpretation”, JBQ 35 (2007) 137–178. Fishlock, A.D.H., “Lope de Vega’s La hermosa Ester and Pinto Delgado’s Poema de la Reyna Ester: a Comparative Study”, BHispSt 32 (1955) 81–97. Fleishman, J., “Why did Ahasuerus Consent to Annihilate the Jews”, JNWSL 25 (1999) 41–58. Fortune, C., “Plot and Character in the Book of Esther”, ScB 34 (2004) 85–96. Fountain, A.K., Literary and Empirical Readings of the Books of Esther, Studies in Biblical Literature 43, New York: Lang, 2002. Fox, M.V., “The Religion of the Book of Esther”, Jdm 39 (1990) 135–147. Fox, M.V., The Redaction of the Book of Esther. On Reading Composite Texts, SBL.MS 40, Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1991.

246

Bibliography

Fox, M.V., “The Redaction of the Greek Alpha-Text of Esther”, in M.A. Fishbane – E. Tov – W.W. Fields, eds., “Sha‘arei Talmon”. Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992, 207–220. Fox, M.V., Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 22001. Fox, M.V., “Three Esthers”, in S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003, 50–60. Fretheim, T.E., “God and Violence in the Old Testament”, WoWo 24 (2008) 18–28. Fried, L.F., “Towards the Ur-Text of Esther”, JSOT 88 (2000) 49–57. Frolov, S., “Two Eunuchs, Two Conspiracies and one Loyal Jew: the Narrative of Botched Regicide in Esther as Test- and Redaction-Critical Test Case”, VT 52 (2002) 304–325. Fuerst, W.J., The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Lamentations. The Five Scrolls, The Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge: CUP, 1975. Gehman, H.S., “Notes on the Persian Words in the Book of Esther”, JBL 43 (1924) 321–328. Gerleman, G., Studien zu Esther, BibS 48, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1966. Gerleman, G., Esther, BKAT 21, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 21982. Gertel, E.B., “Divine and Human Anger and Grace: Scroll of Esther and Exodus 32–34”, JBQ 40 (2012) 151–158. Gevaryahu, H.M.I., “Esther is a Story of Jewish Defense not a Story of Jewish Revenge”, JBQ 21 (1993) 3–12. Gibert, P., L’espérance de Caïn. La violence dans la Bible, Paris: Bayard, 2002. Girard, M. “La violence de Dieu dans la bible juive: Approche symbolique et interprétation théologique”, ScEs 39 (1987) 145–170. Girard, R., La violence et le sacré, Paris: Grasset, 1972. Girard, R., “The Ancient Trail Trodden by the Wicked: Job as Scapegoat”, JSOT.S 33 (1985) 13–41. Glaser, E., “Lope de Vega’s ‘La hermosa Ester’ ”, Sefarad 20 (1960) 110–135. Goldman, S., “Narrative and Ethical Ironies in Esther”, JSOT 47 (1990) 15–31. Gómez Acebo, I., “Los personajes femeninos en el libro de Ester”, ResB 56 (2007) 33–40. Good, E.M., Irony in the Old Testament, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965. Goodhart, S. – Astell, A.W., “Substitutive Reading. An Introduction to Girardian Thinking, Its Reception in Biblical Studies and this Volume” in A.W. Astell – S. Goodhart, eds., Sacrifice, Scripture, & Substitution. Readings in Ancient Judaism and Christianity, CJAn 18, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011, 1–36. Gordis, R., “Studies in the Esther Narrative”, JBL 95 (1976) 43–58. Gordis, R., “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther—A New Solution to an Ancient Crux”, JBL 100 (1981) 359–388. Grant, D.E., “The Difference between Human and Divine ‫”חמה‬, Bib. 91 (2010) 418–424.

Bibliography

247

Grant, D.E., “Human Anger in Biblical Literature”, RB 118 (2011) 339–361. Grant, D.E., Divine Anger in the Hebrew Bible, CBQ.MS 52, Washington: CBQ, 2014. Grappe, C. – Marx, A., Sacrifices scandaleux? Sacrifices humains, martyre et mort du Christ, Essais Bibliques 42, Genève: Labor et Fides, 2008. Greenstein, E.J., “A Jewish Reading of Esther”, in J. Neusner et al., eds., Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987, 225–243. Greenstein, E.J., “The Scroll of Esther. A New Translation”, Fiction 9 (1990) 52–81. Groß, W., Richter, HThK.AT 7, Freiburg: Herder, 2009. Grossfeld, B., ed., The Two Targum of Esther Translated, with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 18, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. Grossman, J., “ ‘Dynamic Analogies’ in the Book of Esther”, VT 59 (2009) 394–414. Grossman, J., Esther. The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading, Siphrut 6, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2011. Grossman, J., “The Vanishing Character in Biblical Narrative: The Role of Hathach in Esther 4”, VT 62 (2012) 561–571. Grottanelli, C. – Milano, L., eds., Food and Identity in the Ancient World, HANE/S 9, Padova: Sargon, 2004. Gruber, M.I., Review of E. Lubetski – M. Lubetski, The Book of Esther. A Classified Bibliography, Bible Bibliographies, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008, RBL 13 (2011) 216–218. Haag, E., “Das Esterbuch und die Tradition von Jahwes Krieg gegen Amalek (Ex 17,16)”, TTZ 112 (2003) 19–41. Haag, H., “‫”חמס‬, ThWAT, II, 1050–1061. Hacham, N., “3 Maccabees and Esther: Parallels, Intertextuality, and Diaspora Identity”, JBL 126 (2007) 765–785. Hacham, N., “Haman, Mordekhai’s Slave”, ZAW 122 (2010) 96–101. Hacham, N., “Bigthan and Teresh and the Reason Gentiles Hate the Jews”, VT 62 (2012) 318–356. Hachlili, R., “The Dura-Europos Synagogue Paintings: A Question of Origin and Interpretation”, in Z. Weiss – O. Irshai – J. Magness – S. Schwartz, eds., “Follow the Wise” Studies in Jewish history and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine, Winona, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010, 403–420. Haelewyck, J.-C., “Le texte dit lucianique du livre d’Esther: Son étendue et sa cohérence”, Muséon 98 (1985) 5–44. Haelewyck, J.-C., “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint, with Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther”, JThS.NS 57 (2006) 439–473. Haelewyck, J.-C., “La version latine du livre d’Esther dans la première Bible d’Alcala. Avec un appendice sur les citations patristiques vieilles latines”, in J.-M. Auwers – A. Wénin, eds., Lectures et Relectures de la bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, BEThL 144, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, 165–193.

248

Bibliography

Hallo, W.W., “The First Purim”, BA 46 (1983) 19–29. Halvorson-Taylor, M.A., “Secrets and Lies: Secrecy Notices (Esther 2:10, 20) and Diasporic Identity in the Book of Esther”, JBL 131 (2012) 467–485. Hanhart, R., eds., Esther, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII,3 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21983. Harvey, C.D., Finding Morality in the Diaspora? Moral Ambiguity and Transformed Morality in the Books of Esther, BZAW 328, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Haupt, P., “Critical Notes on Esther”, AJSL 24 (1908) 97–186. Hausmann, J., “Heilige Texte und Gewalt—Annäherung an das Thema am Beispiel von Psalm 137”, in K.D. Dobos – M. Köszeghy, eds., With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, HBM 21, Sheffield: Phoenix, 2009, 86–93. Heltzer, M., “The Book of Esther—Where does Fiction Start and History End?”, BibRev 8 (1992) 24–30. Heltzer, M., “On two similar motives in the ‘Book of Esther’ and in Herodotus (Esther 2:15, 4, 1–17 and Herodotus III,69)”, in Id., The Province Judah and Jews in Persian Times, Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication, 2008, 219–221. Herodotus, The Histories (A new translation by Robin Waterfield), Oxford World’s Classic, Oxford: OUP, 1998. Herst, R.E., “The Purim Connection”, USQR 28 (1973) 139–145. Hock-Soon Ng, A., “Revisiting Judges 19: A Gothic Perspective” JSOT 32 (2007) 199–215. Hoffman, Y., “The Deuteronomistic Concept of Herem” ZAW 111 (1999) 196–210. Holmstedt, R.D. – Screnock, J., Esther. A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015. Horowitz, E., Reckless Rites. Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence, Princeton— Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006. Hubbard, R.L., “Vashti, Amestris and Esther 1,9”, ZAW 119 (2007) 259–271. Huey, F.B., “Irony as a Key to Understanding the Book of Esther”, SWJT 32 (1990) 36–39. Humbert, P., “Etendre la main”, VT 12 (1962) 383–395. Humphreys, W.L., “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel”, JBL 92 (1973) 211–223. Humphreys, W.L., “Novella”, in G.W. Coats, ed., Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable. Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature, JSOT.S 35, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985, 82–96. Humphreys, W.L., “The Story of Esther and Mordecai: An Early Jewish Novella”, in G.W. Coats, ed., Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable. Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature, JSOT.S 35, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985, 97–113. Hyman, F.C., “The Education of a Queen”, Jdm 35 (1986) 78–85. Hyman, R.T., “Esther 3:3—The Question With No Response”, JBQ 22 (1994) 103–109. Jackson, M.A., Comedy and Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. A Subversive Collaboration, OTM, Oxford: OUP, 2012.

Bibliography

249

Jacobs, J., “Characterizing Esther from the Outset: The Contribution of the Story in Esther 2:1–10”, in E. Ben Zvi, ed., Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures V, PHSC 6, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009, 283–296. Jacobs, L., “Purim”, EJ XVI, 740–741. Jenni, E., “‫”אהב‬, THAT, I, 60–73. Jensen, H.J.L., “Desire, Rivary and Collective Violence in the ‘Succession Narrative’ ”, JSOT 55 (1992), 39–59. Jobes, K.H., The Alpha-Text of Esther. Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text, SBL.DS 153, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. Jobling, J. – Roughley, A., “The Rite to Write: Power, Irony, and Identity in the Book of Esther”, in R.S. Sabbath, Sacred Tropes: Tanakh, New Testament, and Qur’an as Literature and Culture, BibInt.S 98, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2009, 317–333. Johnson, E., “‫”אנף‬, ThWAT, I, 37–89. Johnson, S.R., Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context, Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004. Johnson, S.R., “Novelistic Elements in Esther: Persian or Hellenistic, Jewish or Greek?”, CBQ 67 (2005) 571–589. Jones, B.W., “Two Misconceptions about the Book of Esther”, CBQ 39 (1977) 171–181. Jones, B.W., “The so-Called Appendix to the Book of Esther”, Semitics 6 (1978) 36–43. Joüon, P. – Muraoka, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, SubBib 27, Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. Kahana, H., Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, CBET 40, Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2005. Kahr, M., “The Meaning of Veronese’s Paintings in the Church of San Sebastiano in Venice”, JWCI 33 (1970) 235–247. Kamrada, D.G., “The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter and the Notion of Herem (‫( )חרם‬A Problematic Narrative Against its Biblical Background)”, in K.D. Dobos – M. Köszeghy, eds., With Wisdom As a Robe. Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, HBM 21, Sheffield: Sheffiedl Phoenix, 2009, 57–85. Kedar-Kopfstein, B., “‫”סריס‬, ThWAT, V, 948–954. Keef, A.A., “Rapes of Women/Wars of Men”, SBL.SS 61 (1993), 79–97. Keel, O., Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament. Ikonographische Studien zu Jos 8, 18–26; Ex 17, 8–13; 2 Kön 13, 14–19 und 1 Kön 22,11, OBO 5, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 1974. Kim, Y.S., “Lex Talionis in Exod 21:22–25: Its Origin and Contexts”, JHSc 6 (2006) 2–11. Kirk-Duggan, C.A., “Violence”, EDBib, 1357–1358. Kissling, P.J., “Self-Defense and Identity Formation in the Depiction of Battles in Joshua and Esther”, in J.K. Aitken – J.M.S. Clines – C.M. Maier, eds., Interested Readers. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J.A. Clines, Atlanta: SBL, 2013, 105–119. Klein, L.R., “Honor and Shame in Esther”, in A. Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, Susana, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996, 149–175.

250

Bibliography

Klíma, O., “Awesta, die altpersischen Inschriften, das mittelpersische Schrifttum”, in J. Rypka, ed., Iranische Literaturgeschichte, ITH 4, Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1959, 1–67. Koller, A.J., Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought, Cambridge: CUP, 2014. Korpel, M.C.A., “Theodicy in the Book of Esther”, in A. Laato – J.C. de Moor, eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2003, 351–374. Kossmann, R., Die Esthernovelle: vom Erzählten zur Erzählung. Studien zur Traditionsund Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches, VT.S 79, Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill, 2000. Kruger, P.A., “A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of Anger in the Hebrew Bible”, JNWSL 26 (2000) 181–193. LaCocque, A., “Haman in the Book of Esther”, HAR 11 (1987) 207–222. LaCocque, A., “The Different Versions of Esther”, BibInt 7 (1999) 301–322. LaCocque, A., Esther Regina. A Bakhtinian Reading, Rethinking Theory, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2008. de Lagarde, P.A., ed., Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior Graece, Göttinburg: Arnold Hoyer, 1883. Laniak, T.S., Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther, SBL.DS 165, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998. Laniak, T.S., “Esther’s Volkcentrism and the Reframing of Post-Exilic Judaism”, in S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003, 77–90. Lawson Younger, Jr., K., Ancient Conquest Accounts/A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, JSOT.S 98, Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1990. Lawson Younger, Jr., K., “Some Recent Discussion on the Herem”, in D. Burns – J.W. Rogerson, eds., Far From Minimal. Celebrating the Work and Influence of Philip R. Davis, LHB/OTSt 484, London: T & T Clark, 2012, 505–522. Leder, A.C., “Hearing Esther after Joshua. Rest in the Exile and the Diaspora”, in E. Noort, ed., The Book of Joshua, BEThL 250, Leuven – Paris – Walpole: Peeters, 2012, 267–279. Leggett, D.A., The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth, Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Publishing Company, 1974. Leighton, M., “ ‘¡Dichoso el que tome tus niños y los estrelle contra la peña!’ Una introducción a los salmos imprecatorios, y una exposición del Salmo 137”, in A. Puig i Tàrrech, ed., La violència en la Bíblia, ScrBib 9, Barcelona: PAM – ABCat, 2009, 135–149. Lemaire, A., “Vengeance et justice dans l’Ancien Israël”, in R. Verdier – J.P. Poly, eds., Vengeance. Étude d’ethnologie, d’histoire et de philosophie, III: Vengeance, pouvoir et idéologies dans quelques civilisations d’Antiquité, Paris: Cujas, 1984. Levenson, J.D., Esther. A Commentary, OTL, London: SCM Press, 1997.

Bibliography

251

Lewy, J., “The Feast of the 14th Day of Adar”, HUCA 14 (1939) 127–151. Licht, J., Storytelling in the Bible, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 21986. Limardo Daturi, E., Représentation d’Esther entre écritures et images, LEIA 3, Bern: Lang, 2004. Lindars, B., “Deborah’s Song: Women in the Old Testament”, BJRL 65 (1982–1983) 158–175. Lipiński, E., “‫”נקם‬, “‫”ׂשנא‬, ThWAT, VII, 828–840. Loader, J.A., “Esther as a Novel with Different Levels of Meaning”, ZAW 90 (1978) 417–421. Loader, J.A., “The Pleasing and the Awesome”, OTE 24 (2011) 652–667. Loader, J.A., “Making Things from the Heart: On Works of Beauty in the Old Testament”, OTE 25 (2012) 100–114. Loader, J.A., “The Dark Side of Beauty in the Old Testament”, OTE 25 (2012) 334–350. Loewenstamm, S.E., “Esther 9:29–32: The Genesis of a Late Addition”, HUCA 42 (1972) 117–124. Lohfink, N., “‫”ׁשמד‬, ThWAT, VIII, 176–198. Lohfink, N., Il Dio della Bibbia e la violenza, Questiones Disputatae, Brescia: Morcelliana, 1985. Lohfink, N., “La ‘guerra santa’ e la ‘scomunica’ nella Bibbia”, PSV 33 (1996), 83–94. Long, B.O., 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature, FOTL 9, Grand Rapids, MI., Eerdmans, 1984. Lope de Vega Carpio, F., La hermosa Ester, Barcelona: Linkgua, 2007. Loretz, O., “š‘r hmlk—‘Das Tor des Königs’ (Est 2,19)”, WO 4 (1967) 104–108. Lubetski, E. – Lubetski, M., The Book of Esther. A Classified Bibliography, Bible Bibliographies, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008. Lubitch, R., “A Feminist’s Look at Esther”, Jdm 42 (1993) 438–446. Luther, M., Tischreden, I, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar: Böhlans, 1912. Luzzatto, A., “L’aniconismo ebraico tra immagine e simbolo”, in T. Verdon, ed., L’arte e la bibbia. Immagine come esegesi biblica, Settimello (FI): Biblia, 1992, 87–101. Macchi, J.-D., “Dieu, la perse et le courage d’être juive. Réflexions sur Esther 4”, FV 103 (2003) 59–75. Macchi, J.-D., “Les livres d’Esther. Evolution littéraire et approche narrative”, in D. Marguerat, ed., La Bible en récits, Le Monde de la Bible 48, Genève: Labor et Fides, 2003, 234–249. Macchi, J.-D., “Haman, l’orgueilleux dans les livres d’Esther”, in D. Böhler – I. Himbaza – P. Hugo, eds., L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker, OBO 214, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2005, 198–214.

252

Bibliography

Macchi, J.-D., “Le livre d’Esther: regard hellénistique sur le pouvoir et le monde perse”, Trans 30 (2005) 97–135. Macchi, J.-D., “Le livre d’Esther: écrire une historie perse comme un Grec”, in D. Doré, ed., Comment la Bible saisit-elle l’histoire? XXIe congrès de l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible (Issy-les-Moulineaux), LeDiv 215, Paris: Cerf, 2007, 197–226. Macchi, J.-D., “Les textes d’Esther et les tendances du Judaïsme entre les 3e et 1er siècles avant J.-Chr.”, in I. Himbaza – A. Schenker, eds., Un carrefour dans l’histoire de la Bible. Du texte à la théologie au IIe siècle avant J.-C., OBO 233, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2007, 75–92. Macchi, J.-D., “The Book of Esther: a Persian Story in Greek Style”, in E. Ben Zvi – D.V. Edelman – F. Polak, eds., A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel, PHSC 5, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009, 109–128. Macchi, J.-D., “L’identité judéenne au banquet. Le défi de la commensalité à l’époque hellénistique selon le livre d’Esther”, in O. Artus – J. Ferry, eds., L’Identité dans l’Écriture. Hommage au professeur Jacques Briend, LeDiv 228, Paris: Cerf, 2009, 227–260. Macchi, J.-D., “Une héroïne judéenne à la cour. Enjeux et moyens de l’action héroïne féminine selon le livre d’Esther”, in J.-M. Durand – T. Römer – M. Langlois, eds., Le jeune héros. Recherches sur la formation et la diffusion d’un thème littéraire au Proche-Orient ancien. Actes du colloque organisé par les chaires d’Assyriologie et des Milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 6 et 7 avril 2009, OBO 250, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2011, 273–285. Macchi, J.-D., “Lettres de fête et réécriture. Esther 9,20–28 et la construction d’une instance textuelle d’autorité”, in C. Clivaz et al., eds., Ecritures et réécritures: la reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième Colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 juin 2010, Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2012, 51–64. Macchi, J.-D., “Denial, Deception, or Force: How to Deal with Powerful Others in the Book of Esther”, in E. Ben Zvi – D.V. Edelman, eds., Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, LHB/OTSt 456, London et al.: Bloomsbury, 2014, 219–229. MacDonald, N., “Food and Drink in Tobit and other ‘Diaspora Novellas’ ”, in M. Bredin, ed., Studies in the Book of Tobit. A Multidisciplinary Approach, LSTS 55, London: T & T Clark, 2006. MacDonald, N., Not Bread Alone. The Uses of Food in the Old Testament, Oxford: OUP, 2008. MacDonald, N., What did the Ancient Israelites Eat? Diet in Biblical Times, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2008.

Bibliography

253

Magonet, J., “The Liberal and the Lady: Esther Revisited”, Jdm 29 (1980) 167–176. Mankowski, P.V., Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, HSS 47, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, The Communings with Himself Together with His Speeches and Sayings. A Revised Text and a Translation into English by C.R. Haines, LCL 58, Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press – William Heinemann, 1979. Marguerat, D., ed., Dieu est-il violent?, Paris: Bayard, 2008. Marguerat, D. – Bourquin, Y., Pour lire les récits bibliques. Initiation à l’analyse narrative, Paris: Cerf, 1998. Martin, R.A., “Syntax Criticism of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther”, JBL 94 (1975) 65–72. Martindale, C. – Thomas, R.F., eds, Classics and the Uses of Reception, Classical Reception, Cambridge: Blackwell, 2006. Marx, A., “Familiarité et transcendance. La fonction du sacrifice d’après l’Ancien Testament”, in A. Schenker, ed., Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alten Testament mit einer Bibliographie 1969–1991 zum Opfer in der Bibel, FAT 3, Tuningen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992, 1–14. Mazzinghi, L., “ ‘Il Signore passerà per colpire l’Egitto’: la violenza di Dio nel racconto dell’Esodo”, PSV 33 (1996), 69–82. Mazzinghi, L., ed., La violenza nella Bibbia. XXXIX Settimana Biblica Nazionale, RStB 20 (2008), Bologna: EDB, 2008. McBride, W.T., “Esther Passes: Chiasm, Lex Talio, and Money in the Book of Esther”, in J. Rosenblatt – J. Sitterson, eds., “Not in Heaven”. Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991, 211–223. McDonald, P.M., God and Violence. Biblical Resources for Living in a Small World, Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2004. McGeough, K., “Esther the Hero: Going Beyond ‘Wisdom’ in Heroic Narratives”, CBQ 70 (2008) 44–65. McKane, W., “A Note on Esther IX and 1 Samuel XV”, JTS 12 (1961) 260–261. McKenna, A.J., ed., “René Girard and Biblical Studies”, JSOT.S 33 (1985) 1–171. Meinhold, A., “Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diaspora­ novelle I”, ZAW 87 (1975) 306–324. Meinhold, A., “Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diaspora­ novelle II”, ZAW 88 (1976) 72–93. Meinhold, A., Das Buch Esther, Zürcher Bibelkommentar—Altes Testament 13, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983. Melero Gracia, M.L., “Muerte en Mispá. El caso de la hija de Jefté (Jue 11,29–40)”, in A. Puig i Tàrrech, ed., La violència en la Bíblia, ScrBib 9, Barcelona: PAM – ABCat, 2009, 67–86.

254

Bibliography

Mendenhall, G.E., The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, London – Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Metzger, J.M., “Reliefs au ‘banquet’ dans l’Asie Mineure du Ve siècle av. J.-C.”, RAr 1969.2, 195–224. Metzger, J.M., “Sur deux groupes de reliefs ‘Gréco-Perses’ d’Asie Mineure”, AnCl 40 (1971) 505–525. Metzger, M., “The John Rylands Megillah and Some Other Illustrated Megilloth of the XVth to XVth Centuries”, BJRL 45 (1962) 148–184. Middlemas, J., “The Greek Esthers and the Search for History: Some Preliminary Observations”, in B. Becking – L.L. Grabbe, eds., Between Evidence and Ideology. Essays on the History of Ancient Israel Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch Werkgezelschap, Lincoln July 2009, OTS 59, Leiden – London: Brill, 2011, 145–163. Milano, L., ed., Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, May 17–19 1990, HANE/S 6, Padova: Sargon, 1994. Milano, L., ed., Mangiare divinamente. Pratiche e simbologie alimentari nell’antico Oriente, Eothen 20, Firenze: LoGisma, 2012. Milik, J.T., “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrâm”, RdQ 59 (1992) 321–399. Millard, A.R., “The Persian Names in Esther and the Reliability of the Hebrew Text”, JBL 96 (1977) 481–488. Miller, T., Three Versions of Esther. Their Relationship to Anti-Semitic and Feminist Critique of the Story, CBET 74, Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Mills, M.E., “Household and Table: Diasporic Boundaries in Daniel and Esther”, CBQ 68 (2006) 408–420. Minissale, A., Ester, I libri biblici, Primo Testamento 27, Milano: Paoline, 2012. Momigliano, A., “Eastern Elements in Post-Exilic Jewish, and Greek, Historiography”, in Id., Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, Oxford: Blackwell, 1977, 25–35. Monroe, L.A.S., “Disembodied Women. Sacrificial Language in the Deaths of BathJephthah, Cozbi, and the Bethelemite Concubine”, CBQ 75 (2013) 32–52. Moore, C.A., “A Greek Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther”, ZAW 79 (1969) 351–358. Moore, C.A., Esther. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AncB 7, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. Moore, C.A., “On the Origins of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther”, JBL 92 (1973) 382–393. Moore, C.A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AncB 44, New York: Doubleday, 1977.

Bibliography

255

Moore, C.A., ed., Studies in the Book of Esther, New York: Ktav, 1982. Moore, C.A., “Esther Revisited Again: a Further Examination of Certain Esther Studies of the Past Ten Years”, HAR 7 (1983) 169–186. Mulder, M.J., “‫תלא‬/‫”תלה‬, ThWAT, VIII, 657–662. Munnich, O., “La Peshitta d’Esther: ses relations textuelles avex les textes massorétique et la Septante”, in F. Briquel Chatonnet – P. Le Moigne, eds., L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Études syriaques 5, Paris: Geuthner, 2008, 75–90. Nadar, S., “Gender, Power, Sexuality and Suffering Bodies in the Book of Esther: Reading the Characters of Esther and Vashti for the Purpose of Social Transformation”, OTE 15 (2002) 113–130. Nel, P.J., “The Talion Principle in the Old Testament Narratives”, JNWSL 20 (1994) 21–29. Neulander, J.S., “The Ecumenical Esther: Queen and Saint in Three Western Belief System”, in S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003, 176–199. Niccacci, A. – Pazzini, M., Il rotolo di Rut, ASBF 51, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2000. Niccacci, A. – Pazzini, M. – Tadiello, R., Il libro di Giona, ASBF 65, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2004. Niccacci, A., Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica, ASBF 23, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1986. Niccacci, A., “Organizzazione canonica della Bibbia ebraica: tra sintassi e retorica”, RivBib 43 (1995) 9–29. Niditch, S., War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Niditch, S., “Interpreting Esther: Categories, Contexts, and Creative Ambiguities”, in N. Calduch-Benages – C.M. Maier, eds., The Writings and Later Wisdom Books, Bible and Women 3, Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2014, 255–273. Niemann, H.M., “Das Ende des Volkes der Perizziter. Über soziale Wandlungen Israels im Spiegel einer Begriffsgruppe”, ZAW 105 (1993) 233–257. Noort, E., “Josua und Amalek: Exodus 17:8–16”, in R. Roukema et als., eds., The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, CBET 44, Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2006, 155–170. North, R., “Violence and the Bible. The Girard Connection”, CBQ 47 (1985) 1–27. Noss, P.A., “A Footnote on Time: the Book of Esther”, BibTr 44 (1993) 309–320. Novick, T., “Charity and Reciprocity: Structures of Benevolence in Rabbinic Literature”, HTR 105 (2012) 33–52. O’Kane, M., Painting the Text. The Artist as Biblical Interpreter, The Bible and the Modern World, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. O’Kane, M., “Interpreting the Bible Through the Visual Arts”, HeBAI 1 (2012) 388–409.

256

Bibliography

del Olmo Lete, G., La biblia hebrea en la literatura. Guía temática y bibliográfica, Textos Docents 357, Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions UB, 2010. Otto, E., “‫”ׁשער‬, ThWAT, VIII, 358–403. Otzen, B., “‫”אבד‬, ThWAT, I, 20–23. Pakkala, J., God’s Word Omitted. Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible, FRLANT 251, Göttingen – Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Parris, D.P., Reading the Bible with Giants. How 2000 Years of Biblical Interpretation can Shed New Light on Old Texts, London – Atlanta – Hyderabad: Paternoster, 2006. Parris, D.P., Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics, PTMS 107, Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Paton, L.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther, ICC, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908. Peels, H.G.L., The Vengeance of God. The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament, OTS 31, Leiden – New York – Köln: Brill, 1995. Penna, R., “Il vino e le sue metafore nella grecità classica, nell’Israele antico, en el Nuovo Testamento”, in A. Borrell – A. de la Fuente – A. Puig, eds., La bíblia i el Mediterrani. Actes del Congrés de Barcelona 18–22 de setembre de 1995, Volum I, ScrBib 1, Barcelona: PAM – ABCat, 1997, 41–73. Peretto, E., “Violenza e linguaggio biblico”, PSV 37 (1998) 25–51. Pérez Fernández, M., “La fiesta judía de Purim”, ResB 56 (2007) 13–16. Perrot, J., “Historique des recherces”, CDAFI 4 (1974) 15–20. Piedad Sánchez, J., “El uso del término ‫ ָּת ָּמּס‬en la Biblia hebrea”, Qol 26 (2001) 11–18. Pierce, R.W., “The Politics of Esther and Mordecai: Courage or Compromise?”, BBR 2 (1992) 75–89. Pitschmann, A., “ ‘Gehört dazu nicht Phantasie?’ Erkenntnistheorische Überlegungen zum Gottesbezug des Buches Ester”, in C. Körner, ed., “ . . . denn das ist der ganze Mensch”: Die Textrollen der jüdischen Feste. Kohelet, Ester, Hoheslied, Rut, Klagelieder, SBS 227, Stuttgart: KBW, 2012, 37–53. Plietzsch, S., “Eating and Living: the Banquets in the Esther Narratives”, in N. MacDonald – L.S. Rehmann, eds., Decisive Meals. Table Politics in Biblical Literature, LNTS (JSNT.S) 449, London: T & T Clark, 2011, 27–41. Polish, D.F., “Aspect of Esther: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Megillah of Esther and the Origins of Purim”, JSOT 85 (1999) 85–106. Pritchard, J.B., Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon, Pennsylvania: University Press, 1964. Puig i Tàrrech, A., ed., La violència en la Bíblia, ScrBib 9, Barcelona: PAM – ABCat, 2009. Racine, J., Esther. Tragédie en trois actes, Boston – New York – Chicago: Heath, 1891. Radday, Y.T., “Chiasmus in Joshua, Judges and Others”, LingBibl 27/28 (1973) 6–13. Radday, Y.T., “Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative”, in J.W. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity. Structures, Analyses, Exegesis, Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981, 50–117.

Bibliography

257

Radday, Y.T., “Esther with Humour”, in Y.T. Radday – A. Brenner, eds., On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible, JSOT.S 92, Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1990, 295–313. Rabbinowitz, J., ed., Mishnah Megillah, London: OUP, 1931. Rahlfs, A. – Hanhart, R., eds., Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rainey, A., “Wine from Royal Vineyard”, BASOR 245 (1982) 57–62. Reiterer, F.V., “‫”קצף‬, ThWAT, VII, 95–104. Rémy, P., “Peine de mort et vengeance dans la Bible”, ScEc 19 (1967) 323–350. Revell, E.J., The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative, CBET 14, Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Rick, D., “‫”רעע‬, ThWAT, VII, 582–612. Ringgren, H., “‫”איב‬, ThWAT, I, 228–235. Ringgren, H., “‫”גאל‬, ThWAT, I, 884–890. Ringgren, H., “Esther and Purim”, SEÅ 20 (1956) 5–24. Robbins, P.R., Anger, Aggressions and Violence. An Interdisciplinary Approach, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2000. Rooke, D.W., Handel’s Israelite Oratorio Libretti: Sacred Drama and Biblical Exegesis, Oxford: OUP, 2012. Rooke, D.W., “From London to Amsterdam: Handel’s Esther Reincarnated”, in J.K. Aitken – J.M.S. Clines – C.M. Maier, eds., Interested Readers. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J.A. Clines, Atlanta: SBL, 2013, 459–473. Römer, T., Dieu obscur. Le sexe, la cruauté et la violence dans l’Ancien Testament, Essais bibliques 27, Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996. Römer, T., “Dieu guerrier”, in P. Gibert – D. Marguerat, eds., Dieu, vingt-six portraits bibliques, Paris: Bayard, 2002, 126–134. Rosenheim, J., “Fate and Freedom in the Scroll of Esther”, Prooftexts 12 (1992) 125–149. Rosenthal, L.A., “Die Josephgeschichte mit den Büchern Ester und Daniel verglichen”, ZAW 15 (1895) 277–283. Rüger, H.P., “ ‘Das Tor des Königs’—der königliche Hof”, Bib. 50 (1969) 247–250. Ruiz López, D., “El vino en el antiguo Oriente bíblico”, in A. Borrell – A. de la Fuente – A. Puig, eds., La bíblia i el Mediterrani. Actes del Congrés de Barcelona 18–22 de setembre de 1995, Volum I, ScrBib 1, Barcelona: PAM – ABCat, 1997, 373–388. Ruiz Ortiz, F.J., “Cuando Dios esconde su rostro. Estudio de la ausencia de Dios en el libro masorético de Ester”, Estudia Cordobensia 6 (2013) 213–230. Ruiz Ortiz, F.J., “ ‘Their Fame Continues to Grow’ (cf. Esth 9:4). The Book of Esther and Its Reception”, Anton 90 (2015) 319–342. Ruppert, L., “‫”קסם‬, ThWAT, VII, 78–84. Sæbø, M., et al., eds., Megilloth, BHQ 18, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004. Sáenz-Badillos, A., Historia de la lengua Hebrea, Estudios Orientales 2, Sabadell: AUSA, 1988. Samuelsson, G., Crucifixion in Antiquity, WUNT 310, Tübinger: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

258

Bibliography

Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., “Persian Food. Stereotypes and Political Identity”, in J. Wilkins – D. Harvey – M. Dobson, eds., Food in Antiquity, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1995, 286–302. Sano, Y., “The Representation of the Persian Empire by Greek Authors, with Special Reference to Aeschylus and Herodotus”, in J.U. Ro, ed., From Judah to Judaea. SocioEconomic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period, HBM 43, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012, 197–204. Sasson, J.M., “Esther”, in R. Alter – F. Kermode, eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987, 335–342. Sasson, J.M., “The Blood of Grapes”, in L. Milano, ed., Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, May 17–19 1990, HANE/S 6, Padova: Sargon, 1994, 399–419. Sawyer, J.F.A., “A Critical Review of Recent Projects and Publications”, HeBAI 1 (2012) 298–326. Scaiola, D., “I Salmi imprecatori/il linguaggio violento dei Salmi. Preghiera e violenza”, RStB 20 (2008), 61–79. Schellenberg, A., “Esther. Exegetisch—theologische Beobachtungen zur Rezeption des biblischen Stoffs bei Georg Friedrich Händel”, in C. Karrer-Grube – J. Krispenz – T. Krüger – C. Rose – A. Schellenberg, eds., Sprachen—Bilder—Klänge. Dimensionen der Theologie im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld. Festschrift für Rüdiger Bartelmus zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, AOAT 356, Münster: Ugarit, 2009, 275–293. Schellekens, J., “Accession Days and Holidays: The Origins of the Jewish Festival of Purim”, JBL 128 (2009) 115–134. Schlimm, M.R., From Fratricide to Forgiveness. The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis, Siphrut 7, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Schmidt, E.F., Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, UCOIP 68, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Schmitt Pantel, P., La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Collection de l’école française de Rome 157, Rome: École française de Rome, 1992. Schottroff, W., “‫”פקד‬, THAT, II, 466–486. Schunck, K.D., “‫”חמה‬, ThWAT, II, 1032–1036. Schweizer, H., “ ‘Isaaks Opferung’ (Gen 22): Ergänzunge”, BN 134 (2007) 25–44. Segal, E., “Human Anger and Divine Intervention in Esther”, Prooftexts 9 (1989) 247–256. Seibert, E.A., Disturbing Divine Behavior. Troubling Old Testament Images of God, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Seibert, E.A., The Violence of Scripture. Overcoming the Old Testament’s Troubling Legacy, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. van Seters, J., “Some Observations on the Lex Talionis in Exod 21:23–25”, in S. Beyerle – G. Mayer – H. Strauß, Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung.

Bibliography

259

Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukierchener, 1999, 27–37. Shafer-Elliott, C., Food in Ancient Judah. Domestic Cooking in the Time of the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield – Bristol, CT: Equinox, 2013. Shmeruk, C., “Purim-Shpil”, EJ XVI, 744–746. Siebert-Hommes, J.C., “ ‘Come to the Dinner I have Prepared for You’ (Esther 5:4). Story of Love or Struggle for Power?”, in J.W. Dyk et al., eds., The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible, ACEBTr.S 1, Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 1999, 85–100. Siquans, A., “Die Rolle Esters im Esterbuch im Verhältnis zu Mordechai: Fürbitterin und Vorbild ihres Volkes”, BN 86 (1997) 77–89. Sjöberg, M., “Jephtah’s Daughter as Object of Desire or Feminist Icon”, BibInt 15 (2007) 377–394. Ska, J.L., Our Fathers Have Told us. Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, SubBib 13, Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990. Ska, J.L., “Come leggere l’Antico Testamento?”, CivCatt 3435–3436 (1993) 209–223. Snyman, G., “Narrative Rationality, Morality and Readers’ Identification”, OTE 15 (2002) 179–199. Soltes, O.Z., “Images and the Book of Esther: From Manuscript Illumination to Midrash”, in S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003, 137–175. Sonnet, J.-P., “À la croisée des mondes. Aspect narrative et théologiques du point de vue dans la Bible hébraïque”, in RRENAB, ed., Regard croisés sur la Bible. Études sur le point de vue. Actes du IIIe colloque international du Réseau de recherche en narrativité biblique. Paris 8–10 juin 2006, LeDiv, Paris: Cerf 2007, 75–100. Sonnet, J.-P., “L’analyse narrative des récits bibliques”, in M. Bauks – C. Nihan, eds., Manuel d’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament, Le monde de la bible 61, Genève: Labor et Fides, 2008, 47–94. Starcky, J., “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits de Qumrâm”, RB 63 (1956) 66–67. Starr, C.G., “Greeks and Persians in the Fourth Century B.C. A Study in Cultural Contacts before Alexander. Part II: The Meeting of Two Cultures”, IrAnt 12 (1977) 49–115. Stern, E.R., “Esther and the Politics of Diaspora”, JQR 100 (2010) 25–53. Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narratives: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Sternberg, M., “Time and Space in Biblical (Hi)story Telling: the Grand Chronology”, in R. Schwartz, ed., The Book and the Text, The Bible and Literary Theory, Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990, 81–145. Striedtl, H., “Untersuchung zur Syntax und Stilistik des hebräischen Buches Esther”, ZAW 55 (1937) 73–108. Sweeney, M.A., “Reconceiving the Paradigms of Old Testament Theology in the PostShoah Period”, BibInt 6 (1998) 142–161.

260

Bibliography

Swindell, A.C., Reworking the Bible. The Literary Reception-History of Fourteen Biblical Stories, The Bible in the Modern World 30, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010. Tadmor, H., “Was the Biblical sārîs a Eunuch”, in Z. Zevit – S. Gitin – M. Sokoloff, eds., Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, Winona Lake, MI: Eisenbrauns, 1995, 317–325. Talmon, S., “ ‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther”, VT 13 (1963) 418–455. Talmon, S., “Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?”, DSD 2 (1995) 249–267. Thornton, T.C.G., “The Crucifixion of Haman and the Scandal of the Cross”, JThS.NS 37 (1986) 419–426. Tolmie, D.F., Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide, Bethesta, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1999. Torrey, C.C., “The Older Book of Esther”, HTR 37 (1944) 1–40. Tov, E., “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and the Apocryphal Sections of Esther: a Rewritten Biblical Book”, Text 10 (1982) 1–25. Tov, E., “The LXX Translation of Esther. A Paraphrastic Translation of MT or a Free Translation of a Rewritten Source?”, in A. houtman – A. de Jong – M. Misset-van de Weg, eds., Empsychoi Logoi. Religious Innovations in Antiquity. Study in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, AJEC 73, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2008, 507–526. Tov, E., “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere”, in M. Karrer – W. Kraus, eds., Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006, WUNT 219, Tübinge: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 369–393. Treloar, R., Esther and the End of the ‘Final Solution’. Theodicy and Hebrew Biblical Narrative, ATF Dissertation Series, 3, Adelaine: ATF Press, 2008. Tribble, P., Texts of Terror. Literary-Femenist Readings of Biblical Narratives, Overtures to Biblical Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Tull, P.K., “Jonathan’s Gift of Friendship”, Interp 58 (2004) 130–143. Turner, L.A., “Desperately Seeking Yhwh: Finding God in Esther’s ‘Acrostics’ ”, in J.K. Aitken – J.M.S. Clines – C.M. Maier, eds., Interested Readers. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J.A. Clines, Atlanta: SBL, 2013, 183–193. Vallat, F., “L’inscription trilingue de Xerxès à la Porte de Darius”, CDAFI 4 (1974) 171–180. VanderKam J. – Flint, P., The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus and Christianity, New York: T & T Clark, 2002. Verdon, T., ed., L’arte e la bibbia. Immagine come esegesi biblica, Settimello (FI): Biblia, 1992. Vervenne, M., “Metaphors for Destruction in Exodus 15”, JNWSL 24 (1998) 179–194. Vialle, C., “L’ombre de la reine Vashti. La fonction du chapitre 1 du livre d’Esther dans le texte massorétique”, in C. Focant – A. Wénin, eds., Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-La-Neuve, BEThL 191, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005, 517–525.

Bibliography

261

Vialle, C., “Mordocaï ou les tentations du pouvoir: Étude de la caractérisation du personnage de Mordocaï dans le texte massorétique”, ScEs 57 (2005) 125–139. Vialle, C., Une analyse comparée d’Esther TM et LXX. Regard sur deux récits d’une même histoire, BEThL 233, Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Vialle, C., “La problématique du pouvoir dans Esther hébreu (TM) et Esther grec (LXX)”, ZAW 124 (2011) 568–583. Vílchez, J., Rut y Ester, NBE, Narraciones II, Estella: Verbo Divino, 1998. Wacker, M.-T., “Tödliche Gewalt des Judenhasses—mit tödliche Gewalt gegen Judenhass?: Hermeneutische Überlegungen zu Est 9”, in F.L. Hossfeld – L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, eds., Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments: Festschrift für Erich Zenger, HBS 44, Freiburg: Herder, 2004, 609–637. Waegeman, M., “Motifs and Structure in the Book of Esther”, in M. Augustin – K.-D. Schunck, eds., “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”. Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Studies of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986, BEAT 13, Frankfurt am Main – Bern – New York – Paris: Peter Lang, 1988, 371–384. Wagner, S., “‫”בקׁש‬, ThWAT, I, 754–769. Wahl, H.M., “Der Prozess Hamans (Esther 7,1–8,1) Zur königlichen Gerichtsbarkeit im Alten Testament”, EThL 76 (2000) 105–112. Wahl, H.M., Das Buch Esther. Übersetzung und Kommentar, Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 2009. Wallis, G., “‫”אהב‬, ThWAT, I, 105–128. Walsh, C., “Women on the Edge”, in E. Ben Zvi – D.V. Edelman, eds., Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, LHB/OTSt 456, London et al.: Bloomsbury, 2014, 122–143. Waltke, B.K. – O’Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun, 1990. Wechsler, M.G., “Two Para-Biblical Novellae From Qumran Cave 4: A Reevaluation of 4Q550”, DSD 7 (2000) 130–172. Weiland, F.S., “Plot Structure in the Book of Esther”, BSac 159 (2002) 277–287. Wénin, A., “Pourquoi le lecteur rit-il d’Haman en Esther 6TM?”, VT 60 (2010) 465–473. Wénin, A., “ ‘Adonaï est un guerrier’ (Ex 15,3). La violence divine dans le premier Testament”, in J.-D. Causse – E. Cuvillier – A. Wénin, Divine violence. Approche exégétique et anthropogique, Paris: Cerf, 2011, 15–66. Westbrook, R., “Punishments and Crimes”, ABD, V, 546–556. Wetter, A.-M., “In Unexpected Places: Ritual and Religious Belonging in the Book of Esther”, JSOT 36 (2010) 321–332. Wetter, A.-M., “How Jewish is Esther? Or: How is Esther Jewish? Tracing Ethnic and Religious Identity in a Diaspora Narrative”, ZAW 123 (2011) 596–603.

262

Bibliography

Wetter, A.-M., “On her Account”. Reconfiguring Israel in Ruth, Esther and Judith, LHB/ OTSt 623, London et al.: Bloomsbury, 2015. Whedbee, J.W., The Bible and the Comic Vision, Cambridge: CUP, 1998. White Crawford, S., “Esther. A Feminine Model for Jewish Diaspora”, in P.L. Day, ed., Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989, 161–177. White Crawford, S., “Has Esther been Found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the Esther corpus”, RdQ 65–68 (1996) 307–325. White Crawford, S., “4QTales of the Persian Court (4Q550a–e) and Its Relation to Biblical Royal Courtier Tales, especially Esther, Daniel and Joseph”, in E.D. Herbert – E. Tov, eds., The Bible as Book; the Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, London: British Library, 2002, 121–137. White Crawford, S., “Esther and Judith: Contrast in Character”, in S. White Crawford – L.J. Greenspoon, eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003, 61–76. White Crawford, S. – Greenspoon, L.J., eds., The Book of Esther in Modern Research, JSOT.S 380, London – New York: T & T Clark, 2003. Wiebe, J.M., “Esther 4:14: Will Relief and Deliverance Arise from Another Place?”, CBQ 53 (1991) 409–415. Williams, J.G., The Bible, Violence, and the Sacred. Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned Violence, New York: HarperCollins, 1991. Williams, J.G., “On Job and Writing: Derrida, Girard, and the remedy-poison”, SJOT 7 (1993) 32–50. Wills, L.M., The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King. Ancient Jewish Court Legends, HDR 26, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990. Wills, L.M., The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Myth and Poetics), Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995. Winitzer, A., “The Reversal of Fortune Theme in Esther: Israelite Historiography in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context”, JANER 11 (2011) 170–218. Winton Thomas, D., “The Root ‫אהב‬, ‘Love’ in Hebrew”, ZAW 57 (1939) 57–64. Wolak, A.J., “Alcohol and the Fate of Nadab and Abihu: A Biblical Cautionary Tale against Inebriation”, JBQ 41 (2013) 219–226. van Wolde, E., “Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions: Anger and Love in the Hebrew Bible”, BibInt 16 (2008) 1–24. Wolters, A.M., “Not Rescue but Destruction: Rereading Exodus 15:8”, CBQ 52 (1990) 223–240. Xenophon, Cyropaedia. With an English Translation by Walter Miller, volume II, LCL 52, Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press – William Heinemann, 1979. Yamauchi, E.M., Persia and the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990. Yamauchi, E.M., “Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations”, VT 42 (1992) 272–275.

Bibliography

263

Yebra Rovira, C., “La figura de Ester: plasmación y trasmisión”, ResB 56 (2007) 53–60. Zadok, R., “Notes on Esther”, ZAW 98 (1986) 105–110. Zimmern, H., “Zur Frage nach dem Ursprunge des Purimfestes”, ZAW 11 (1891) 157–169. Zlotnick, H., “From Jezebel to Esther: Fashioning Images of Queenship in the Hebrew Bible”, Bib. 82 (2001) 477–495. Zolvang, E.K., “The First Orientalist? Fantasy and Foreignness in the Book of Esther?”, in S. Holloway – J. Scurlock – T. Beal, eds., In the Wake of Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Gorgias Précis Portfolios 4, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009, 199–213.

Index of Authors Abadie 100, 169, 215 Achenbach 6 Ackerman 120 Alonso Schökel 80, 81 Alter 85 Amit 41, 100, 113, 234 Asurmendi 54, 108, 120, 121 Baloian 60, 61 Barbaglio 1, 2, 4, 5, 80 Bardtke 40, 115, 116, 140, 147, 150, 157, 191, 193, 222, 225 Bar-Efrat 89, 97, 106, 108 Barucq 144, 220 Bauckham 42, 44, 235 Beal 22, 34, 39, 45, 68, 98, 100, 106, 112, 113, 129, 140, 142, 147, 150, 152, 154, 155, 158, 163, 164, 174, 179, 183, 189, 191, 198, 199, 203, 206, 211, 212, 217, 220, 225, 226 Bechtel 28, 39, 140, 190 Berg 15, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 150, 152, 153, 164, 169, 170, 191 Berlin 13, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32, 38, 42, 69, 76, 79, 82, 86, 91, 95, 104, 105, 114, 121, 124, 125, 140, 144, 145, 146, 148, 152, 157, 158, 159, 177, 179, 181, 183, 191, 194, 199, 204, 207, 209, 210, 211, 213, 216, 218, 221, 222, 223, 226, 229 Berman 45, 117, 175 Bickerman 101, 115, 121, 181, 201 Bille 68, 84 Bovati 2, 80 Brenner 33, 44, 110 Briant 148, 149, 150, 151, 165, 166, 177, 209, 210 Bush 6, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 37, 38, 40, 54, 79, 87, 100, 106, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, 124, 128, 140, 142, 144, 145, 152, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 169, 180, 183, 185, 188, 190, 193, 194, 196, 198, 206, 207, 210, 216, 217, 219, 222 Butting 30, 45, 101 Calduch-Benages 4, 5, 6, 55, 82, 188, 217, 232 Candido 17, 18, 19, 21, 31, 45, 100, 138, 176 Carruthers 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 203, 207, 216

Cavalier 17, 19, 21 Clines 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 33, 37, 39, 40, 41, 45, 57, 62, 79, 93, 96, 98, 100, 114, 115, 123, 132, 140, 145, 147, 151, 157, 158, 159, 161, 166, 189, 190, 191, 196, 197, 203, 205, 207, 208, 210, 213, 217, 221 Craig 32, 42, 43, 109, 112, 117, 155, 179, 204, 231 Ctesias 9, 148, 149, 166, 204 Dalley 68, 69, 155, 223 Day 27, 29, 35, 40, 117, 125, 140, 148, 160, 162, 164, 173, 175, 179, 180, 190, 194, 200, 205 De Troyer 18, 20, 21, 138 De Troyer – Wacker 17 Dommershausen 86, 184, 190, 212 Dorothy 21, 27, 104, 109, 138, 191, 215 Driver 58, 64, 194 Duchesne-Guillemin 107 Duran 35, 99, 171, 188 Estelle 146, 174, 176 Evans 67, 69, 140 Fine 48, 49 Firth 31, 41, 54, 169 Fishlock 49 Fleishman 43, 44 Fortune 108, 117 Fountain 33, 117 Fox 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 57, 76, 77, 82, 87, 98, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 128, 140, 142, 144, 146, 152, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163, 169, 176, 177, 183, 189, 190, 191, 195, 197, 200, 202, 205, 206, 210, 213, 215, 216, 217, 223, 224 Fried 17, 21 Frolov 124, 137, 138 Gerleman 30, 31, 40, 107, 140, 159, 162, 190, 201, 205, 207, 208, 212, 216, 220, 222 Goldman 32, 57, 119, 123, 181, 202, 215, 218, 226 Gómez Acebo 170 Gordis 22, 23, 33, 96, 103, 114, 144, 151, 157, 222

265

Index of Authors Graig 170, 172, 177 Grant 5, 52, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 91, 110, 183 Greenstein 13, 22, 33, 79, 109, 111, 203 Grossman 28, 32, 69, 87, 132, 140, 142, 145, 150, 154, 157, 162, 173, 182, 183, 184, 190, 203, 208, 209, 212, 215, 221 Haag 2, 3, 31, 54 Hacham 32, 120, 137, 138 Haelewyck 18, 19, 138 Hallo 14, 117, 204 Harvey 119, 150, 182, 187 Herodotus 9, 25, 67, 69, 112, 145, 148, 149, 150, 152, 165, 166, 174, 181, 185, 186, 188, 203, 204, 209 Horowitz 203 Huey 32, 233 Humphreys 21, 24, 26 Jacobs 15, 31, 98, 117 Jobes 6, 18, 21, 160 Jones 32, 34, 190, 202, 204 Klein 45 Koller 16, 19, 30, 36, 39, 109, 113, 217 Korpel 134 LaCocque 15, 25, 26, 31, 33, 35, 38, 43, 101, 112, 113, 120, 122, 126 Laniak 34, 38, 39, 41, 63, 82, 84, 125, 150, 157, 158, 178, 183, 185, 187 Levenson 17, 18, 23, 26, 28, 44, 54, 57, 79, 87, 112, 121, 125, 140, 142, 157, 158, 159, 161, 170, 173, 174, 176, 179, 184, 187, 190, 206, 207, 211, 216, 220, 221, 222 Limardo Daturi 6, 46, 47, 48 Loader 21, 40, 100, 169, 175, 233 Lubetski 7, 18, 42, 44, 109, 111, 113, 117, 120, 124, 125, 126 Macchi 14, 25, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 54, 57, 117, 165, 166, 169, 170, 171, 172, 190, 202, 203 Magonet 111, 115, 119, 124, 217, 229 McBride 28, 83, 110, 177, 224 McGeough 23, 117 Meinhold 26, 30, 38, 41, 153, 190 Minissale 85, 116, 138, 140, 145, 160, 161, 162, 175, 176, 189, 190, 195, 207, 208, 222

Moore 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 35, 54, 92, 115, 116, 118, 138, 140, 142, 145, 157, 158, 159, 162, 175, 188, 189, 190, 191, 203, 214, 216, 217, 219, 221, 222 Nadar 111 Niccacci 87, 90, 91, 94, 101, 105, 127 Noos 127, 130, 134 Paton 14, 22, 31, 40, 43, 54, 75, 77, 98, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 124, 125, 140, 142, 144, 157, 159, 162, 180, 183, 185, 188, 190, 193, 194, 198, 208, 214, 215, 216, 219, 222, 225, 231 Peels 80, 81, 82 Plietzsch 155, 186 Rabbinowitz 15 Radday 28, 32, 152 Rooke 47, 50, 51 Rosenheim 121 Rosenthal 30 Ruiz-Ortiz 36, 39, 46 Sasson 86, 109, 116, 117, 122, 134, 167 Segal 60, 63, 101 Siebert-Hommes 132, 183 Siquans 98 Ska 4, 5, 29, 87, 88, 89, 91, 97, 99, 100, 104, 105, 108, 127 Sonnet 86, 93, 104, 108, 133 Sternberg 8, 100, 104, 113, 127, 130, 131 Tadmor 149 Talmon 20, 23, 27, 40, 108, 114, 117 Torrey 20, 40 Tov 18, 19, 139 Treloar 6, 85, 96, 173, 213, 214, 216, 221, 229 Vialle 6, 27, 29, 33, 35, 40, 42, 56, 66, 83, 87, 88, 89, 97, 99, 101, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 140, 142, 150, 162, 163, 190, 198, 200, 231 Vílchez 6, 16, 18, 21, 22, 40, 44, 54, 57, 75, 77, 79, 82, 87, 116, 127, 138, 140, 146, 147, 148, 152, 161, 163, 179, 183, 184, 185, 190, 198, 205, 208, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 222

266 Wacker 6, 17, 43, 190, 194, 202, 216, 224 Wahl 54, 87, 140, 142, 154, 157, 161, 172, 182, 186, 188, 190, 198, 199, 204, 208, 216, 217, 220 Weiland 29, 89, 97, 99 Wénin 1, 2, 4, 33, 141 White Crawford 5, 20, 32, 45

Index of Authors Wiebe 40, 178 Wills 24, 26, 27 Winitzer 57, 87 van Wolde 60, 61, 62, 64 Xenophon 148, 149, 165, 166, 181, 183

Index of Biblical Citations Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:28 182 3:22 71 4:15 78, 80 6:11.13 2 9:20–22 168 14:1 90 14:18 167 14:20 54 19:3 167 19:30–38 168 21:8 167 22 3 22:2 56 22:7 159 22:10 72 22:12 72 24:60 55 27:41–42 65, 78 27:41–45 65 27:42 80 27:44–45 65 34:25 127 34:25–26 78 34:25–27 80 34:25–29 82 37:14 127 37:20.26 78 37:22 72 37:24 56 37:28 177 37:34 122 37:36 150 37:5 55 38:24–26 68 40:1–2 60 40:1–23 68 40:1–3 91, 153 40:1 68, 108 40:2 153 40:8 153 40:14 158 40:19 68, 108, 109 40:20 168

40:22 68, 153 43:14 77 48:14 71 49:5 2 Exodus 1:7 119 2:12–14 78 2:15 72 3:20 71 4:4 71 4:23 78 5:21 79 7:14–12: 32 4 15:3 4 15:9 179 15:14–16 208 16:20 60, 61 17:8–16 31, 54 18:21 55 19:13 68 20:5 55 21:12–14 80 21:15 56 21:20 80, 81 21:21 80 21:23–25 80 22:23 78 23:4–5 55 23:5 56 23:22 54, 57 32:27 78 Leviticus 7:33 224 10:6 61, 62 10:16 62 10:16–20 61 19:17 56 19:18 81 20:14 68 20:15–16 78 20:22 2 20:27 68

268 Leviticus (cont.) 24:14.16.23 68 24:19 187 25:42 177 26:42.45 110 Numbers 10:29 95 10:35 55, 58 15:35–36 68 16:21 61 16:33 76 17:11 62 18:5 61 21:14 4 24:8 53 24:15–20 57 25:5 78 31:13–20 61 31:14 60, 62 31:14–20 61 31:19 78 33:52 73, 74, 76 35:19–27 81 35:23 207 Deuteronomy 1:34 62 1:42 58 4:3 73 4:26 76 5:9 55 6:15 73 7:24 73 9:3 76 9:7 62 9:7.8.22 62 9:19 61 12:2 76 12:3 76 12:7.18 71 12:10 58 12:31 55 13:10 78 13:10–11 68 15:10 112 15:12 177 15:16 56 16:11 224

Index of Biblical Citations 19:15–19 2 19:16–19 187 19:6.12 81 21:22 67, 68 25:17–19 31, 202 31:4 73 31:18 39 32:24.33 64 32:41 54 32:43 80 33:2 36 33:7 54 Joshua 2:8–11 208 5:13 53 6:1–16 70 7:25 68 8:29 68, 220 10:13 81 10:26 67, 68 11:14 73, 74 11:16–20 4 11:17 78 12:9–24 216 13:1–13 13 13:10 58 20:3.5.9 81 21:43–45 209 21:44 58 22:10–20 61 22:20 61 23:1 58 24:8 73 Judges 2:14 177, 208 2:18 58 3:21 72 3:28 58 7–8 82 9:24 2 11:36 58 11–12 3 13:5 83 14:10–20 167 15:15 72 16:23–31 168 16:25 168

269

Index of Biblical Citations 16:28 83 16:28–30 80 17:49 71 19 3 Ruth 1:1 90 4:7 202 4:15 56 1–2 Samuel 1 Sam 1:4.5 1 Sam 1:9 1 Sam 4:3 1 Sam 7:10–14 1 Sam 9:3 1 Sam 11:7 1 Sam 14:24 1 Sam 15 1 Sam 17:47 1 Sam 17:49 1 Sam 18:10ff 1 Sam 18:17 1 Sam 18:29 1 Sam 20:17 1 Sam 24:10 1 Sam 24:22 1 Sam 25:24 1 Sam 25:36–38 1 Sam 26:9 1 Sam 29:1–11 1 Sam 29:4 1 Sam 30:27–31 1 Sam 31:8–13 1 Sam 31:10 2 Sam 1:2 2 Sam 1:14 2 Sam 1:26 2 Sam 7:1 2 Sam 11:13 2 Sam 11:20 2 Sam 13:1–14 2 Sam 13:15 2 Sam 13:28 2 Sam 14:7 2 Sam 14:11 2 Sam 15:6 2 Sam 15:30

224 113 58 70 75 213 58, 81 31, 54, 123, 187, 217 4 72 54 4 58 56 207 74 181 168 72 61 62 216 108 68 127 72 56 58 168 65 168 56 168 74 74 133 183

2 Sam 16:5–13 2 Sam 18:10 2 Sam 18:12 2 Sam 19:20 2 Sam 21:5 2 Sam 21:9–14 2 Sam 21:12 2 Sam 22:18 2 Sam 24:13 2 Sam 24:16 2 Sam 24:17

113 67 72 120 73 68 67 55 54 71 159

1–2 Kings 1 Kgs 2:5–9 1 Kgs 5:15 1 Kgs 5:18 1 Kgs 8:33 1 Kgs 8:65–66 1 Kgs 14:29 1 Kgs 15:29 1 Kgs 16:8–10 1 Kgs 21:8–14 1 Kgs 21:20

81, 183 56 58 58 167 152 73 168 168 58

2 Kgs 3:27 2 Kgs 5:10–12 2 Kgs 5:11 2 Kgs 5:13 2 Kgs 8:12 2 Kgs 9:22–37 2 Kgs 9:31–33 2 Kgs 10:17 2 Kgs 10:28 2 Kgs 11:16.18 2 Kgs 12:10 2 Kgs 13:19 2 Kgs 16:19 2 Kgs 17:25 2 Kgs 17:39 2 Kgs 19:18 2 Kgs 22:13.17 2 Kgs 23:4 2 Kgs 24:2 2 Kgs 24:15

61 63, 65 61 61, 65 78 4 149 73 73 78 150 61 152 78 58 76 65 150 76 150

1–2 Chronicles 1 Chr 9:18 1 Chr 9:19 1 Chr 13:9–10

143 150 71

270 1–2 Chronicles (cont.) 2 Chr 1:11 2 Chr 11:11 2 Chr 19:2 2 Chr 20:23 2 Chr 23:17 2 Chr 24:18 2 Chr 25:3 2 Chr 32:25–26

Index of Biblical Citations 55 168 55 74 78 61, 62 78 61

Ezra 1:4 211 4:1 53 4:13.15.22 158 4:15 151 4:20 70 7:12–26 210 8:36 36, 210 10:14 210 Nehemiah 2:9 210 5:5 182 5:15 70, 210 13:21 72 Judith 12:19 167 Esther 1:2 35, 197 1:3 34, 127, 189 1:4 35, 105, 109, 127, 212 1:5 144 1:6 33, 109 1:7 169 1:8 36, 169, 214 1:9 35, 111, 112, 113, 160, 161 1:10 91, 110, 127, 128, 141, 145, 150, 155, 162, 163, 168, 169, 185, 225, 233 1:11 110, 112 1:12 36, 63, 66, 89, 91, 92, 101, 105, 109, 112, 142, 143, 197, 236 1:13 36, 57, 125, 186 1:14 110, 145 1:15 101

1:16 93, 101, 105, 125, 133, 151 1:17 254 1:18 62, 93, 112 1:19 36, 61, 95, 112, 162, 197, 219, 229 1:20 63 1:21 175 1:22 95, 110, 111, 113, 121, 206, 229 2:1 62, 87, 91, 101, 105, 110, 112, 127, 162, 170, 236 2:3 141, 149, 150 2:4 88, 110, 111, 175, 211 2:5 31, 87, 88, 98, 113, 127, 138 2:7 105, 110, 113, 117, 229 2:8 36, 99, 127 2:9 105, 117, 144, 224 2:10 43, 98, 113, 115, 147, 175, 188 2:11 99, 127, 128, 144 2:12 36, 127 2:14 141, 150 2:15 105, 117, 127, 131, 211 2:17 56, 108, 109, 117, 129, 141, 148, 175, 211 2:18 35, 169, 224 2:19 114, 140, 142, 145, 155 2:20 43, 98, 113, 115, 147, 175, 188 2:21 124, 127, 129, 138, 140, 142, 143, 147, 150, 151, 153, 154, 173, 197 2:21–23 8, 9, 37, 63, 69, 72, 87, 88, 101, 105, 137–154, 207, 229 2:22 92, 99, 124, 142, 143, 146, 148 2:23 68, 73, 92, 95, 140, 143, 146, 147, 148, 152, 153, 162, 186, 188, 197, 212, 230 3:1 29, 31, 33, 36, 71, 89, 98, 113, 120, 181, 185, 197, 211, 212 3:2 36, 98, 102, 123, 141, 143, 144, 145 3:3 106, 114, 143, 144, 185

Index of Biblical Citations 3:4 98, 106, 110, 127, 132, 232 3:5 65, 74, 83, 92, 120, 129 3:6 66, 72, 74, 83, 106, 115, 122, 128, 142 3:7 14, 127, 128, 181, 196 3:8 36, 37, 54, 94, 106, 122, 146, 158, 176, 177, 196, 222 3:8 47, 58, 59, 84, 136, 154, 171, 201, 212, 234, 235, 255, 286 3:9 36, 75, 93, 95, 162, 177, 197, 210 3:10 35, 54, 110, 111, 121, 177, 179 3:11 175, 214, 223 3:12 30, 54, 70, 83, 95, 102, 151, 185, 197, 210; 219 3:13 74, 76, 78, 103, 123, 131, 163, 177, 197, 208, 214, 230 3:14 171 3:15 35, 37, 44, 55, 98, 102, 105, 110, 121, 129, 133, 140, 155, 172, 180, 189, 209, 215 4:1 99, 102, 123, 142 4:2 37, 143, 144, 145 4:3 35, 36, 102, 123, 155, 201 4:4 98, 105, 150, 233 4:5 86, 115 4:6 143 4:7 115, 133, 142, 177 4:8 74, 77, 95 4:11 66, 131, 144, 168 4:12 37, 68 4:13 28, 175, 177, 189 4:14 35, 40, 77, 94, 105, 132, 163, 173, 178, 201, 234 4:15 155 4:16 35, 37, 91, 94, 98, 115, 117, 123, 127, 162, 169, 207, 125, 230 4:17 75, 108, 115 5:1 36, 38, 105, 108, 127, 173, 189, 219 5:2 109, 117, 127, 211

271 5:3 23, 33, 109, 118, 128, 174, 197, 229 5:4 35, 121, 128, 162, 170, 171, 172, 173, 197, 219 5:6 33, 118, 128, 169, 174, 197 5:7 23, 70, 109, 128 5:8 162, 170, 174, 197, 219 5:9 65, 66, 83, 88, 92, 102, 109, 114, 115, 127, 128, 131, 141, 143, 145, 168, 172, 173, 225, 233 5:10 57, 66, 83, 122, 126, 128, 129, 172 5:11 122, 152, 211, 216 5:12 189 5:13 113, 114, 142, 143, 145, 158 5:14 57, 66, 68, 69, 71, 94, 126, 131, 133, 142, 162, 185, 186, 233 6:1 28, 95, 127, 142, 152, 173, 230 6:2 33, 72, 95, 102, 138, 142, 151 6:3 125, 212, 141 6:4 68, 102 6:5 105 6:6 105, 111, 121, 141, 171 6:7 141, 171 6:8 33, 141, 186 6:9 28, 141 6:10 66, 113, 114, 141, 143, 145, 152, 175, 180, 181 6:11 35, 125, 141 6:12 114, 121, 143, 145, 180, 183 6:13 23, 38, 57, 102, 118, 122, 126, 126, 172, 181, 222, 236 6:14 150, 172 7:1–10 87, 125, 128, 155–189, 229 7:1 66, 163, 172, 173 7:2 23, 109, 118, 128, 161, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 229 7:3 117, 163, 174, 175, 197

272 Esther (cont.) 7:4 34, 74, 75, 77, 78, 94, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 177, 178, 182 7:5 98, 105, 158, 178 7:6 54, 55, 58, 98, 117, 121, 157, 161, 179, 180, 181, 212, 230 7:7 92, 102, 105, 109, 161, 163, 180, 181, 182, 236 7:8 106, 118, 120, 155, 161, 169, 181, 182, 183, 185, 206, 211, 233 7:9 68, 69, 94, 101, 102, 105, 110, 115, 125, 128, 133, 162, 163, 185, 186, 219 7:10 33, 61, 66, 68, 71, 88, 92, 94, 125, 102, 105, 162, 163, 170, 197, 205, 236 8:1 35, 54, 118, 122, 127, 162, 173, 174, 189, 199, 216 8:2 33, 35, 98, 111, 199, 206, 211 8:3 122, 123, 132, 181 8:4 96, 97, 118, 138, 152, 199, 256 8:5 77, 95, 122, 123, 151, 189, 197 8:6 36 8:7 68, 72, 73, 94, 105, 107, 113, 132, 139, 142, 175, 187, 227, 231 8:8 36, 95, 103, 111, 118, 130, 201 8:9 95, 123, 197, 200, 210 8:10 151 8:11 34, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 96, 103, 163, 175, 196, 197, 207, 213, 214, 219, 236 8:13 36, 37, 58, 82, 103, 219 8:14 36 8:15 37, 44, 56, 109, 215, 218 8:16 225 8:17 35, 36, 56, 75, 103, 123, 181, 190, 196, 208, 215, 219, 223, 225, 233 9:1–19 8, 9, 103, 190–227, 229 9:1 10, 28, 36, 43, 56, 58, 70, 82, 195, 196, 201, 203,

Index of Biblical Citations 205, 206, 211, 212, 214, 223, 225, 235 9:2 123, 142, 181, 194, 196, 197, 201, 203, 206, 208, 213 9:3 75, 115, 185, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 233 9:4 36, 123, 205, 211, 212 9:5 37, 56, 58, 71, 79, 82, 92, 123, 194, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203, 213, 215, 232 9:6 56, 79, 92, 127, 194, 196, 213, 215 9:7–9 216 9:10 31, 54, 72, 93, 122, 123, 197, 217, 225 9:11 127, 173, 196 9:12 71, 82, 95, 106, 107, 109, 111, 118, 123, 174, 196, 200, 215, 218, 219, 220, 225 9:13 36, 68, 82, 103, 142, 146, 197, 199, 219 9:14 36, 68, 69, 79, 93, 111, 199, 200, 219, 220, 227 9:15 31, 72, 93, 123, 196, 197, 199, 201, 220, 217, 225 9:16 16, 31, 56, 58, 71, 72, 79, 82, 96, 123, 163, 175, 196, 197, 217, 222, 223, 225 9:17 35, 196, 221, 222, 223, 225 9:18 35, 196, 197, 221, 222, 225 9:19 103, 196, 221, 223, 225 9:20 95, 151, 195, 230 9:21 127, 133 9:22 58, 106, 222, 223, 224, 234 9:23 95 9:24 54, 55, 77, 122, 123, 197 9:25 68, 123, 127, 151 9:26 14, 95, 153, 229 9:27 57, 95, 127 9:29 95, 190, 116 9:30 34, 202, 222 9:31 35, 113, 123, 133, 163 9:32 95, 142, 151 10:1–3 19, 28, 87, 106 10:2 29, 34, 36, 95, 111, 116, 151, 152, 212, 213 10:3 71, 84, 99, 113, 116, 123, 212

273

Index of Biblical Citations Job 1:4–5 159, 167 5:2 78 5:17–18 4 6:4 64 19:7 2 19:28–29 65 20:16 78 26:7 67 36:16–18 64 36:18 65 38:23 157 Psalms 4:2 157 7:16 184 32:7 157 34:22 55 37:8 65 37:32 72 46:10 5 55:21 72 58:5 64 58:11 80 68:1 56 72:14 3 78:31 78 80:17 76 81:16 55 88:19 56 105:38 208, 213 106:10 53 106:32 62 119:106 202 135:10 78 137:2 67 138:7 71 Proverbs 6:34 82 14:11 73 15:1 65 15:15 168 15:18 65 15:27 55 16:14 65, 80 20:1 168 21:14 65 22:24–25 65 23:20–21 168

27:4 65 28:10 184 28:28 76 29:22 65 31:6–7 168 Qohelet 2:3 1 68 2:19 70 5:5 62 5:16 62 5:18 70 6:6 157 8:9 70 8:11 178 9:7 168 Song of Songs Cant 4:4

67

Ben Sirah 7:26 55 31:27 168 Isaiah 1:1–20 4 1:24 58, 80 2:1–4 5 5:30 157 10:4 78 11:1–9 3 11:14 72 14:23 73 19:14 168 22:24 67 26:14 74 27:1 78 27:4 64 28:7 168 30:25 78 34:8 82 35:4 80 37:19 76 47:6 61, 62 51:13 65 51:17.21–22 167 56:3–5 149 57:16–18 61 59:17 80 61:2 55

274 Isaiah (cont.) 61:8 55 62:8–9 167 63:10 58 63:18 53 66:5 55 Jeremiah 7:20 65 9:28 76 13:22 2 14:2.3 183 15:3 78 16: 5–9 167 17:4 58 18:7 76 20:4 56 22:3 2 23:9 168 25:16 168 25:27 168 30:14 58 31:13 223, 234 31:16 58 31:18–19 4 34:16 182 34:19 149 35:4 150 37:15 62 37:15–16 60 Lamentations 1:2 56 2:4 54, 58, 59 2:12 168 2:20 78 2:21 78 Ezekiel 5:13 80 6:3 76 7:23 2 8:3 71 9:6 79 15:3 67 16:27 59 22:26 2 25:7 74, 76

Index of Biblical Citations 25:12 80 26:6 78 26:15 78 27:10 67 30:13 76 33:8 80 34:4.12 75 37:9 78 39:9–10 5 39:17–21 167 39:27 58 44:21 168 Daniel 1 167 1:3 150 2:15 70 2:38.39.48 70 2:48 70 2:49 143 3:19 65 5:1–30 168 5:2.10 112 6:3 158 6:25 70 11:3.36 214 11:16 208 11:30 92 11:36 214 11:42 71 11:44 65, 74 Hosea 7:16 64 10:5 62 Joel 1:5 1:11

168 76

Amos 1:3–2:16 4 2:8 167 2:9 73 3:10 2 3:11 54, 157 3:15 76 5:21 55

275

Index of Biblical Citations 6:4–6 167 8:10 223, 234 Jonah 4:2 133 4:10 76 Micah 3:2 56 5:13 73 6:12 2 7:19 182 Nahum 1:2 1:6

54, 80 65

Habakkuk 1:2 2 2:15 64

Greek Versions AT A:11–15.18 AT 7:11 LXX A:12–17 LXX A:11–17 LXX A:17 LXX C:28 LXX C:7 LXX F:12 LXX 7:4 LXX 7:8 LXX 9:10 LXX 9:16

138 161 138 146 139 170 114 42 161 161 195 195

Zephaniah 1:9 2 2:13 76 3:4 2, 3 Zechariah 1:2 61, 62 1:15 61 2:15 57 2:8–9 194 8:14 62 8:19 222 12:9 72 Malachy 1:2 56 2:16 3 1–2 Maccabees 1 Macc 4:59 1 Macc 7:39

224 221